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

Re: Date of P Source

Expand Messages
  • John
    Jon asked ... Jon, I completed a historical timeline of the Middle East showing chronological comparisons based upon the evidence I have gathered from numerous
    Message 1 of 56 , Oct 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Jon asked

      > I am interested to know what source you adhere to for the known
      > provenance of these Scythians. Try as I might I only come up with
      > three contesting theories.
      >
      > 1 - They occupied the Crimea chasing out the Cimmerians southward.
      > 2 - They were largely of N/W Iranian origin and spread westward into
      > Anatolia.
      > 3 - They originated in Anatolia and spread east and southward.
      >
      > All these events are conjectured to be before the 8th century BCE.

      Jon, I completed a historical timeline of the Middle East showing
      chronological comparisons based upon the evidence I have gathered from
      numerous sources. Herodotus speaks of the appearance of the Scythians
      ruling over Media for 28 years before being expelled by Cyaxares.
      There is evidence that Rusas II of Urartu prompted the Scythians to
      move Westwards in persuit of the Cimmerians (so saving Urartu for some
      time). Scythians entered into a marriage alliance with Esarhaddon who
      was Assyrian king during the reign of Massaneh and accompanied this
      monarch on his 2nd invasion of Egypt (Scythian arrows have been found
      as far south as Aswan).

      I can send you a copy of the time line/king list if it is helpful.

      Hope this helps

      John
    • Djehuti Sundaka
      ... If anyone is following my discussion, that wouldn t be what it appears to be at all. No one can overlook the time periods involved pertaining to the texts
      Message 56 of 56 , Oct 27, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "George"
        <historynow2002@...> wrote:
        >
        > Djehuti:
        >
        > Your discussion would appear to be based solely on information
        > derived from biblical writings. I have never known you to so
        > limit your analysis and your discussion.



        If anyone is following my discussion, that wouldn't be what it
        appears to be at all. No one can overlook the time periods involved
        pertaining to the texts or the clear non-association between the two
        practices exhibited in those texts. There's simply no getting around
        that.



        >
        > At the very least,
        >
        > My methodology includes references to the MLK in Carthage,
        > references to biblical Moloch in non-biblical texts and more
        > recent than the purported compositional dating of the bible.



        Yet nothing supporting a perspective that the offering of firstlings
        (be they vegetable or animal) derives from the MLK.



        >
        > I would propose that including these extra-biblical sources
        > of information allows for more robust analysis and conclusions.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > George
        >
        >
        > P.S. If you MUST restrict yourself to biblical sources, you
        > might investigate the conclusions that can be proposed from the
        > information wedged together by these texts:
        >
        > 1Ki 11:7 "Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh,
        > the abomination of Moab, in the hill that [is] before Jerusalem,
        > and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon."
        >
        > This text makes a clear enough reference to Moloch, and also
        > refers to Chemosh of Moab. Is Chemosh and Moloch essentially
        > the same deity with different ethnic terms used?



        No. But one can certainly choose to speculate that they are without
        any sufficient reason to do so just as one can choose to single out a
        particular reference to 'Moloch' where the context from all other
        references indicates the correct reference to have been 'Milcom'.



        >
        >
        >
        >
        > 1Ki 11:33 ...Because that they have forsaken me, and have
        > worshipped ... Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom
        > the god of the children of Ammon..."
        >
        > "MiLCom" would be just another form of MLCH. And again we
        > wonder if Chemosh and Milcom are the same deity?



        No. 'Milcom' would be the correct reference to the deity of Ammown,
        not an alternate form of 'MLCH'.



        >
        > We see from the Moabite Stone that Chemosh is, indeed, the
        > key deity of Moab. At last then, we turn to this text:
        >
        >
        >
        > 2Ki 3:26-27 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too
        > sore for him ... Then he took his eldest son that should have
        > reigned in his stead, and offered him [for] a burnt offering upon
        > the wall...."
        >
        > It could be argued that there is no definitive evidence that
        > the King of Moab performed this sacrifice because of his devotion
        > to Chemosh, or that Chemosh and the biblical MLCH were in fact
        > the same deity worshipped by different ethnic groups. But I would
        > find such argumentation rather futile in the face of no other
        > information that would indicate otherwise.




        When a string of speculations is created to support a desired
        conclusion, no actual argumentation is necessary to point it out.

        Djehuti Sundaka


        >
        >
        >
        > ,
        > --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Djehuti Sundaka"
        > <Djehuti_Sundaka@> wrote:
        > >
        > > No amount of conjecture will ever change the fact that the
        practice
        > > of sacrificing firstfruits and firstborns to the deity was never
        > > associated (or in an attempted disassociation) with the MLK. We
        see
        > > the practice already in existence and reformed in the period
        before
        > > the reign of Menashsheh in the J (Exodus 34:19-20) and E (Exodus
        > > 13:1, 13:11-15, 22:29-30) sources whereas we only see criticism
        of
        > > the MLK in the period after the reign of Menashsheh in Jeremiah
        > > (Jeremiah 7:31, 19:4-6), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:20-21), D/DH
        > > (Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10, 2Kings 21:6, 23:10), and P (Leviticus
        > > 18:21, 20:1-5) and never any felt need for an apology to
        disassociate
        > > the former practice (Leviticus 27:26, Deuteronomy 15:19-20) from
        the
        > > latter (Ezekiel 20:26).
        > >
        > > It's clearly observable that the two practices simply weren't
        > > associated in the minds of anyone who had lived during those
        times no
        > > matter how much anyone today may desire them to have been.
        > > A "literal interpretation of the biblical texts" has nothing to
        do
        > > with what's clearly observable relating to the time periods in
        which
        > > two forms of sacrifices were dealt with without ever being
        associated
        > > with each other or even felt to have had a need to be
        disassociated
        > > with each other. Not following a person's assertion of which
        Baal
        > > had been THE Baal of Yerwshalayim and the conclusion he chooses
        to
        > > jump to is by no means an automatic result of a literal textual
        > > approach. Such a bassless characterization of a non-agreement
        with a
        > > perspective is in itself a biased dismissal for avoiding the lack
        of
        > > adequate justification for the perspective.
        > >
        > > Djehuti Sundaka
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "George"
        > > <historynow2002@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Djehuti:
        > > >
        > > > You write:
        > > > ">
        > > > >
        > > > > On the contrary, you ask a question of what we know as if
        > > everything
        > > > > to be known on ancient sacrifices is currently and adequately
        > > > > available to us. We already have the evidence in the
        biblical
        > > text
        > > > > itself which is something you simply wish to dismiss as being
        a
        > > MLK.
        > > > > The bottom line is either the known evidence shows the MLK to
        > > have
        > > > > been a sacrifice of first-born males or it doesn't. Either
        it
        > > fits
        > > > > the description of what we find implied in Exodus 22:29-30
        and
        > > Exodus
        > > > > 34:19-21 or it doesn't.
        > > > >
        > > > > Djehuti Sundaka
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > This is really not the kind of disputation that I'm used to you
        > > > making Djehuti.
        > > >
        > > > It would seem you take an especially literal interpretation of
        > > > the biblical texts. Are you not the same researcher who years
        ago
        > > > worked fairly vigorously to extract connections to non-biblical
        > > > history based on how something was written in the Old Testament.
        > > >
        > > > Naturally you will say yes, and then quibble about my lack of
        > > > understanding of your views. Yep. I don't understand your
        views.
        > > >
        > > > My basic premise is that when I see a textual use in the bible
        > > > that is not found OUTSIDE the bible vs. a textual use in non-
        > > > biblical materials that is not found INSIDE the bible - - I
        > > > am inclined to believe the biblical scribes have either
        deliberately
        > > > distorted the material, or that their writings may
        unintentionally
        > > > tell us something about the time in which the scribes were
        writing.
        > > >
        > > > The biblical Moloch is found only very recently in ANE - from
        the
        > > > time of the Hellenistic period or even more recently (I haven't
        > > > tracked down the references to know which of the Greek writings
        > > > are the earliest).
        > > >
        > > > But there is no Moloch to be found prior to that.
        > > >
        > > > From Carthage, we know that a child sacrifice was called a
        MLCH....
        > > > as part of the Baal Haman cult.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Is there something we might conclude that bridges this? I think
        > > > there is, and you say "no" - - you can't.
        > > >
        > > > Djehuti, we build these bridges ALLL the time on this list. Why
        > > > are you so suddenly bashful?
        > > >
        > > > Here's my bridge:
        > > > The biblical "Baal" of Jerusalem is "Baal Haman" - - who
        perpetuates
        > > > the "mlch" ritual in Jerusalem and which is opposed by the
        Yahweh
        > > > cultists.
        > > >
        > > > The "mlch" ritual has become an alternate name, in some texts,
        > > > for the god itself.
        > > >
        > > > This is not an unbelievable transformation.... unless you take
        > > > biblical writings literally.
        > > >
        > > > I guess you do.
        > > >
        > > > Regards,
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > George
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.