Herodotus mentions Palestine

A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Herodotus mentions Palestine

In support of other claims I give you the seven mentions of Palestine by Herodotus. He traveled the region in the mid 5th c. BC. He produced a history, he being considered the father of history, of the Persian conquest of the region as well as the kind of anecdotes travelers love to tell when they return home. His idea of what a history should consist of more or less died with him but he was the first who tried.

What is relevant here is his mention of Palestine by that name as an anecdote to all the claims that Palestine never existed as a nation or that it was invented by the Romans in the 2nd c. AD.

This is also of interest in that he makes no mention of any Philistines or Judeans. Note even in the list of people who circumcize he mentions no Judeans even though he was obviously able to learn about Palestine in seven different contexts.

I found a two volume collection of his histories on the Project Gutenberg website. Then I simply searched for Palestine and grabbed a coherent sentence worth of text. Admitted they all suffer from lack of context to some degree.

=====

105. Thence they went on to invade Egypt; and when they were in Syria which
is called Palestine, Psammetichos king of Egypt met them; and by gifts and
entreaties he turned them from their purpose, so that they should not
advance any further: and as they retreated, when they came to the city of
Ascalon in Syria, most of the Scythians passed through without doing any
damage, but a few of them who had stayed behind plundered the temple of
Aphrodite Urania.


That this was so I conjectured myself not only because they are dark-skinned
and have curly hair (this of itself amounts to nothing, for there are other
races which are so), but also still more because the Colchians, Egyptians,
and Ethiopians alone of all the races of men have practised circumcision
from the first.  The Phenicians and the Syrians[88] who dwell in Palestine
confess themselves that they have learnt it from the Egyptians, and the
Syrians[89] about the river Thermodon and the river Parthenios, and the
Macronians, who are their neighbours, say that they have learnt it lately
from the Colchians.


106. The pillars which Sesostris of Egypt set up in the various countries
are for the most part no longer to be seen extant; but in Syria Palestine I
myself saw them existing with the inscription upon them which I have
mentioned and the emblem.


5. Now by this way only is there a known entrance to Egypt: for from
Phenicia to the borders of the city of Cadytis belongs to the Syrians[4] who
are called of Palestine, and from Cadytis, which is a city I suppose not
much less than Sardis, from this city the trading stations on the sea coast
as far as the city of Ienysos belong to the king of Arabia, and then from
Ienysos again the country belongs to the Syrians as far as the Serbonian
lake, along the side of which Mount Casion extends towards the Sea.


91. From that division which begins with the city of Posideion, founded by
Amphilochos the son of Amphiaraos on the borders of the Kilikians and the
Syrians, and extends as far as Egypt, not including the territory of the
Arabians (for this was free from payment), the amount was three hundred and
fifty talents; and in this division are the whole of Phenicia and Syria
which is called Palestine and Cyprus: this is the fifth division.


Now in the line stretching to Phenicia from the land of the Persians the
land is broad and the space abundant, but after Phenicia this peninsula goes
by the shore of our Sea along Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, where it ends;
and in it there are three nations only.


89. Of the triremes the number proved to be one thousand two hundred
and seven, and these were they who furnished them:--the Phenicians,
together with the Syrians[82] who dwell in Palestine furnished three
hundred; and they were equipped thus, that is to say, they had about
their heads leathern caps made very nearly in the Hellenic fashion,
and they wore corslets of linen, and had shields without rims and
javelins. These Phenicians dwelt in ancient time, as they themselves
report, upon the Erythraian Sea, and thence they passed over and dwell
in the country along the sea coast of Syria; and this part of Syria
and all as far as Egypt is called Palestine.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:This is

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

This is also of interest in that he makes no mention of any Philistines or Judeans.

well, in a way he mentions the philistines, since the greek palaistine comes from various egyptian (peleset), hebrew (peleshet), and assyrian (palashtu/pilistu) words all meaning "land of the philistines."  most english bibles translate the hebrew peleshet as "philistia," but it's the same exact word as "palestine" comes from.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

This is also of interest in that he makes no mention of any Philistines or Judeans.

well, in a way he mentions the philistines, since the greek palaistine comes from various egyptian (peleset), hebrew (peleshet), and assyrian (palashtu/pilistu) words all meaning "land of the philistines."  most english bibles translate the hebrew peleshet as "philistia," but it's the same exact word as "palestine" comes from.

Excuse but if those "really mean" something else then that something else is Land of the Palestinians not Philistines. All bible translations need be corrected.

The Septuagint stories have no known credibility. See my recent post on the origins of the Yahweh cult. Even the so-called Hebrew appears to be nothing more than an invented liturgical language mixing Greek and Aramaic.

This is supported by external facts. What is known of the Palestinians from credible sources does not match the Septuagint stories about the Philistines. Therefore there is no way to say they are the same. In this regard Philistines cannot be distinguished from other made up names such as Atlanteans.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:[Excuse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

[Excuse but if those "really mean" something else then that something else is Land of the Palestinians not Philistines. All bible translations need be corrected.

sorry, i'm not quite sure what you mean here.  strictly speaking, "palestinians" and "philistines" are basically just two different english transliterations of the same ancient word.  that's all i'm saying.  i'm not arguing that the philistines actually existed nor that the LXX or the masoretic texts are "reliable" in any historical sense.  truth be told, herodotus isn't very "reliable" in any historical sense--not by our standards, anyhow.  all i'm saying is that by using the greek palaistine, herodotus seems to take it for granted that the philistines existed, or at least didn't bother to question it.

i also don't see how you can make an argument that hebrew was based to any significant degree on greek, since the two languages have remarkably different grammars (i studied both as part of my religion and classical studies majors in college).  i'd be willing to consider phoenician as a common (though tenuous) link between the two.  and of course biblical hebrew is a liturgical language.  humans have always invented liturgical languages.  medieval church latin was never spoken by the majority of european christendom, the sanskrit of the vedas was passed over by the hindu population in favor of dialects like bengali and pali, classical arabic is derived almost exclusively from the quran, and everybody knows only the amish attempt to use king james english.  sacred language is a necessary part of humanity's concept of the sacred in general (i think eliade would be with me on this one), but that doesn't just automatically negate the historical significance of those words.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
conclusion: Ancient

conclusion: Ancient Palestinians were utilitarians, and possibly even 'unwitting stoics'.....

 

NEXT QUESTION!

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Excuse but if those "really mean" something else then that something else is Land of the Palestinians not Philistines. All bible translations need be corrected.

sorry, i'm not quite sure what you mean here.  strictly speaking, "palestinians" and "philistines" are basically just two different english transliterations of the same ancient word.  that's all i'm saying.

We find Philistine in the Greek Septuagint which means they were two different words to the Greeks and therefore the English also uses two different words. As our only original sources of the two words are Greek we cannot accuse them of confusing themselves.

Quote:
i'm not arguing that the philistines actually existed nor that the LXX or the masoretic texts are "reliable" in any historical sense.  truth be told, herodotus isn't very "reliable" in any historical sense--not by our standards, anyhow.

Regardless of his reliability unless he was an impish Galifrayan he did not choose a name from 2400 years in his future just to upset Zionists. I am only reciting his usage of the name. Either it was their name or at least the Greek version of their name or a time traveler revealed it. The usual claim is that Palestine was a name invented by the Romans in 135AD. That is obviously nonsense betraying a remarkable lack of academic knowledge of the region or deliberate deception, i.e. lying, propaganda, isreality.

Quote:
all i'm saying is that by using the greek palaistine, herodotus seems to take it for granted that the philistines existed, or at least didn't bother to question it.

As he makes no mention of the GREEK name Philistine found in the Septuagint he cannot be doing that.

Quote:
i also don't see how you can make an argument that hebrew was based to any significant degree on greek, since the two languages have remarkably different grammars (i studied both as part of my religion and classical studies majors in college).

Hebrew is Greek, Joseph Yehuda, Beckett Publications, Oxford, 1982. Preface Saul Levin. I found it for downloading with a google search as a scan of the book not as a text.

It is hardly my idea. I simply note there is no Hebrew before the Masoretic save in some Dead Sea Scrolls and in both cases they are written using Aramaic script. All other inscriptions found in bibleland use Phoenician script and with the present dating of the Amarna letters they are in Aramaic. There are not enough inscriptions of a sufficient length in either script to establish there was ever an independent Hebrew language in the region. Yet is shows up in liturgical usage after centuries of Greek rule in a region where the people speak Aramaic.

Quote:
i'd be willing to consider phoenician as a common (though tenuous) link between the two.  and of course biblical hebrew is a liturgical language.  humans have always invented liturgical languages.  medieval church latin was never spoken by the majority of european christendom, the sanskrit of the vedas was passed over by the hindu population in favor of dialects like bengali and pali, classical arabic is derived almost exclusively from the quran, and everybody knows only the amish attempt to use king james english.  sacred language is a necessary part of humanity's concept of the sacred in general (i think eliade would be with me on this one), but that doesn't just automatically negate the historical significance of those words.

And? Obviously this hebrew has many Greek elements even down to the definite articles being Ho and Ha and no indefinite articles. Factually no archaeologist has found the least indication of a propserous literate culture around Jerusalem prior to the arrival of the Greeks so obviously they did not write down these stories and obviously such a backwards culture is not going to invent Greek literary forms before the Greeks invent them nor is the "old testament" credited with the invention of Greek literary forms. I have another article posted here on anachronisms going into this a greater detail.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Kapkao wrote:

conclusion: Ancient Palestinians were utilitarians, and possibly even 'unwitting stoics'.....

NEXT QUESTION!

No matter how many next questions the answer is always the same. Mixing stories created in Greek at the earliest in the late 2nd c. BC and likely in Alexandria as a literary back story for the Yahweh cult imposed upon Judea earlier in that century should never be taken seriously by anyone. Such stories should only be told to children intermixed with Jack and the Beanstalk and other fairytales. There is no evidence anyone ever took them seriously or even as the only stories before the Christians invented dogma and then still only Christians took them seriously. Jews have never required belief in these stories nor have they ever taken the stories as guidance to change their rituals and taboos. Give a Christian the story of John baptising Jesus and he will come up with six different ways to baptize.

Witness the many christian inquisitions on matters of doctrine and faith specifically related to the words in the bible. Witness the absence of jewish inquisitions on anything in the bible but only one matters such as accepting the idea of oral law against the Karaites -- in Spain no less and a century before the inquisition made famous by Monty Python and Mel Brooks.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Kapkao

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

conclusion: Ancient Palestinians were utilitarians, and possibly even 'unwitting stoics'.....

NEXT QUESTION!

No matter how many next questions the answer is always the same. Mixing stories created in Greek at the earliest in the late 2nd c. BC and likely in Alexandria as a literary back story for the Yahweh cult imposed upon Judea earlier in that century should never be taken seriously by anyone. Such stories should only be told to children intermixed with Jack and the Beanstalk and other fairytales. There is no evidence anyone ever took them seriously or even as the only stories before the Christians invented dogma and then still only Christians took them seriously. Jews have never required belief in these stories nor have they ever taken the stories as guidance to change their rituals and taboos. Give a Christian the story of John baptising Jesus and he will come up with six different ways to baptize.

Witness the many christian inquisitions on matters of doctrine and faith specifically related to the words in the bible. Witness the absence of jewish inquisitions on anything in the bible but only one matters such as accepting the idea of oral law against the Karaites -- in Spain no less and a century before the inquisition made famous by Monty Python and Mel Brooks.

Nony, I'm not anti-palestinian.  I'm not anti-anything, actually. I know what Philistine means, and it is not... terribly flattering, but it certainly doesn't mean "inferior person". (I've never been all that fond of art museums myself, and culture, to me means "what other people enjoy&quotEye-wink

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote: We find

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

We find Philistine in the Greek Septuagint which means they were two different words to the Greeks and therefore the English also uses two different words. As our only original sources of the two words are Greek we cannot accuse them of confusing themselves.

interesting.  so the word in the septuagint is philistine precisely?  i admit, i have no experience with the koine greek of the septuagint, but i do know it has significant differences from the ionic greek of herodotus (which i do have experience with), just as there are significant differences between the same ionic and the koine of the new testament (which i also have experience with).  "greek" isn't just "greek," nor were all greek-speakers "greeks."  it is entirely possible that philistine and palaistine are regional variations, or historically different forms, or both, of the same word, signifying the same place.  there is a space about three and a half centuries separating herodotus from the final redaction of the septuagint, after all.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

I simply note there is no Hebrew before the Masoretic save in some Dead Sea Scrolls and in both cases they are written using Aramaic script.

well, there is the nash papyrus, dating from the second century B.C.E., which has the ten commandments in hebrew.  also, the mishnah was compiled in hebrew around 220 C.E., and the first masoretes didn't begin working till around 500.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Obviously this hebrew has many Greek elements even down to the definite articles being Ho and Ha and no indefinite articles.

obviously, but it has many more chaldean, syriac, and persian elements.  the very fact that greek has a naturally vowelled script and hebrew doesn't is a major difference, but regardless, almost all languages in north africa, the near east, arabia, the balkans, anatolia, iran, and even russia that utilized phonetic script derived said script ultimately from the phoenician characters.  personally, i find it likely a form of proto-hebrew (probably much closer to aramaic, actually) was spoken long before the seleucids arrived, and perhaps began to be written as early as the babylonian captivity.  when the greeks began to significantly influence judean culture, of course they recognized common elements in each other's script, and of course a kind of messy syncretism is bound to have taken place.  it's also damn near impossible that the classical hebrew which, much like its arabic cousin, derived almost exclusively from the talmud and the masoretic text, is identical with that spoken by the jews during the tannaitic period, and i'm sure classical hebrew was influenced much more by greek than the proto-hebrew of the babylonian captivity.

still, as far as greek and hebrew go, i argue for comingling rather than common descent.  ultimately, their scripts have a common ancestor, but it's highly unlikely the spoken languages themselves do.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
We find Philistine in the Greek Septuagint which means they were two different words to the Greeks and therefore the English also uses two different words. As our only original sources of the two words are Greek we cannot accuse them of confusing themselves.

interesting.  so the word in the septuagint is philistine precisely?  i admit, i have no experience with the koine greek of the septuagint, but i do know it has significant differences from the ionic greek of herodotus (which i do have experience with), just as there are significant differences between the same ionic and the koine of the new testament (which i also have experience with).  "greek" isn't just "greek," nor were all greek-speakers "greeks."  it is entirely possible that philistine and palaistine are regional variations, or historically different forms, or both, of the same word, signifying the same place.  there is a space about three and a half centuries separating herodotus from the final redaction of the septuagint, after all.

I do not wish to give the impression I know more than I do. I do not read Greek much beyond my knowledge of scientific terminology. However I have been through as many translations as I can find of sources in Greek which mention Philistines and it is always Philistine.

Let me first point out there are in fact only two sources, the Septuagint and Antiquities by Josephus and the latter is clearly drawing upon the Septuagint (and stories which are not currently known as part of it) for his material.

I have not found the text in Greek and then tracked down the actual Greek word used for Philistine to verify it. However given the number of sources I have checked, some before Zionism was invented, I would have to assume there has been an incredible conspiracy to always render Palestine and Phlistine into English. Eventually I will find a Greek text and verify this beyond question but at the moment I think it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW: Aphrodite is Aphord eye t ee, so it is also Philist eye n ee similarly Palest eye n ee

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I simply note there is no Hebrew before the Masoretic save in some Dead Sea Scrolls and in both cases they are written using Aramaic script.

well, there is the nash papyrus, dating from the second century B.C.E., which has the ten commandments in hebrew.  also, the mishnah was compiled in hebrew around 220 C.E., and the first masoretes didn't begin working till around 500.

220 AD is after the DSS in "hebrew" but both are written using Aramaic script, as does modern Israel, 2nd c. BC is the time frame the Septuagint stories would start to be created so finding a part of it is hardly surprising but I am unfamiliar with so I will have to get back to you. I always appreciate leads to what I have not found.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Obviously this hebrew has many Greek elements even down to the definite articles being Ho and Ha and no indefinite articles.

obviously, but it has many more chaldean, syriac, and persian elements.  the very fact that greek has a naturally vowelled script and hebrew doesn't is a major difference, but regardless, almost all languages in north africa, the near east, arabia, the balkans, anatolia, iran, and even russia that utilized phonetic script derived said script ultimately from the phoenician characters.

 

I have no problem with an absense of vowels in a phonetic language. I think it is given way too much importance. One only needs have the same word pronounced all around just Britain too see how worthless spelling out vowels is. The same word all over the English speaking world including all over the US only makes the problem more obvious. Adding vowels is only for agreement on the written word not on the spoken word.

The book I suggested is exhaustive in listing Greek prefixes as Hebrew suffixes and things like that. Many "hebrew" words are little more than Greek words spelled backwards or written left to right but read right to left however you would like to express it. I am not a linguist. The author is an interested amateur. The preface is written by a linguist who obviously recommends the book.

But the bottom line is there is no evidence "hebrew" was ever a spoken language. When the Judeans appear in history they are speaking Aramaic. Their "sacred" texts are written using Aramaic script. The inscriptions found in the region, including the mentions of Yahweh and his Ashara are in Phoenician script. There are simply not enough non-biblical samples to establish an independent "hebrew" language outside of liturgical writings and all of those date from after the Septuagint.

In all literate societies the most common written material is contracts and agreements. Next is government decrees and least common is religious. In bibleland nothing must is found prior to the Greeks and even after the Greeks, are we to believe the only significant work to survive is religious? It is easy to say YES if one is religious. Atheists have a real problem with divine intervention.

Quote:
personally, i find it likely a form of proto-hebrew (probably much closer to aramaic, actually) was spoken long before the seleucids arrived, and perhaps began to be written as early as the babylonian captivity.

One can speculate, choose to believe, in favor of any religious tradition but that is not rational. There is no evidence of any Hebrew ever much less a proto version. There is also no evidence for any babylonian captivity either. One of these days I will get around to writing a single article exposing the nonsense all four supposed bits of evidence for it.

Quote:
when the greeks began to significantly influence judean culture, of course they recognized common elements in each other's script, and of course a kind of messy syncretism is bound to have taken place.

In that matter of linquistics there is the problem. Greek is an Aryan or post WWII Indo-European language whereas Hebrew is supposedly a Semitic language. The mixture of the two is more like pidgin Greek or pidgin Aramaic put into written form. I have come across explicit statements that before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered it was widely believed Hebrew was in invented liturgical language. And still beyond a few letters written in it, the DSS are all liturgical.

It is also fairly well known that the sum total of the different words in pre-modern Hebrew had only about 1/3 the number of different words needed for a functioning language. The first thing the Zionists had to do was invent the other 2/3rds of the words before inventing the words to cover the advances in civilization since the 1st c. Imagine a language without the word for lightning but only thunder or maybe vice versa, it has been a while.

Quote:
it's also damn near impossible that the classical hebrew which, much like its arabic cousin, derived almost exclusively from the talmud and the masoretic text, is identical with that spoken by the jews during the tannaitic period, and i'm sure classical hebrew was influenced much more by greek than the proto-hebrew of the babylonian captivity.

I find it important to make a point of no evidence of any captivity as it is little more than hand waving to explain the sudden literacy and Zoroastrian influence resulting in the imaginary creation of the Old Testament and monotheism. The reality is this entire babylon thing is just the believers in retreat trying to salvage what they can from the discrediting of the all the bible stories prior to the supposed captivity. "Well... all the previous was bullshit but after this point it is completely true!" Sorry but is it all nonsensical. It is trying to salvage as much as possible after giving up the giggley parts even though there is NO evidence for what they are trying to salvage.

Quote:
still, as far as greek and hebrew go, i argue for comingling rather than common descent.  ultimately, their scripts have a common ancestor, but it's highly unlikely the spoken languages themselves do.

As above, absent any evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language it is at best a pidgin language committed to writing.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, Nony I guess ALLOW ME TO RESTATE THAT

Your main problem is that the west sees Israel as a "Fortress" against Islam.

But then again Israel has lied to the USA to attempt to throw my Nation in a war against Iran.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:But the

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

But the bottom line is there is no evidence "hebrew" was ever a spoken language.

well, maybe not compelling evidence.  there is jesus's utterance on the cross which is given in hebrew in matthew and in aramaic in mark.  the hebrew was obviously written to connect it to psalm 22, so we can dismiss the idea that jesus was making conversation.  then there is the passage in the talmud that says that rabbi judah hanasi, who compiled the mishnah in 220, only ever spoke hebrew, along with his entire household, including the maids.  it was definitely a language of the religious elite, but even if we take it for granted that there are strong connections with greek (once again, after having worked with both languages, i don't, but i acknowledge there are at least a few scholars who do), that's still no hard evidence that the language didn't develop organically.  in the end, the idea that hebrew was formed artificially by some mysterious group of elites based on koine greek is at least as speculative as the idea of a hypothetical spoken proto-hebrew.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

When the Judeans appear in history they are speaking Aramaic. Their "sacred" texts are written using Aramaic script. The inscriptions found in the region, including the mentions of Yahweh and his Ashara are in Phoenician script. There are simply not enough non-biblical samples to establish an independent "hebrew" language outside of liturgical writings and all of those date from after the Septuagint.

i agree with you, just as there are no classical arabic inscriptions predating the quran.  that doesn't automatically mean the language was invented by muhammad, nor does it mean that no form of arabic was spoken before the quran was written.  along the same lines, the fact that we have no examples of "biblical" hebrew predating the second century C.E. does not automatically mean a group of rabbis pulled it out of thin air.

if your only argument, however, is that hebrew would not have been spoken by the "israelites" of the hebrew bible, whoever they were and wherever they came from, then yes, i agree with you.  i also say that's nothing new or shocking to most bible scholars who aren't bound by a religious agenda.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is also no evidence for any babylonian captivity either.

correction, there is no extra-biblical evidence.  if you consider the bible completely worthless as any kind of historical evidence, fair enough, but i would say that in itself is an irrational prejudice, especially considering it's unlikey the babylonians would have bothered trumpeting their conquest of such an insignificant people anyway. 

it's hardly fair to take it for granted that a people cannot be trusted at all to know where they came from.  if we follow this logic, we have to discount everything that historians at least tentatively accept about the ancient histories of almost all peoples, especially peoples who were not empire-builders.  in the ancient world, almost all peoples recorded their origins either in scripture or epic poetry.  of course such evidence is suspect, but until any contrary evidence is found, it is the only evidence we have.  even archeological evidence, which is lauded so universally, is usually interpreted in the light of this kind of evidence.  

but if you want to throw out everything the jews say about themselves, fair enough.  precisely where do you propose they came from, and what is your evidence? 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Kapkao wrote:
Your main problem is that the west sees Israel as a "Fortress" against Islam.

Only people who will believe anything think that is the case. Those kinds of people are the mindless believers we regularly ridicule.

Quote:
But then again Israel has lied to the USA to attempt to throw my Nation in a war against Iran.

And two wars against Iraq the second we are still fighting.

And it has the US supporting it's war crimes in occuppied territories of Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem and occupied Syria and most recently the Freedom Flotilla massacre. And that is just the beginning of Israeli atrocities the US supports.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
But the bottom line is there is no evidence "hebrew" was ever a spoken language.

well, maybe not compelling evidence.  there is jesus's utterance on the cross which is given in hebrew in matthew and in aramaic in mark.  the hebrew was obviously written to connect it to psalm 22, so we can dismiss the idea that jesus was making conversation.  then there is the passage in the talmud that says that rabbi judah hanasi, who compiled the mishnah in 220, only ever spoke hebrew, along with his entire household, including the maids.  it was definitely a language of the religious elite, but even if we take it for granted that there are strong connections with greek (once again, after having worked with both languages, i don't, but i acknowledge there are at least a few scholars who do), that's still no hard evidence that the language didn't develop organically.  in the end, the idea that hebrew was formed artificially by some mysterious group of elites based on koine greek is at least as speculative as the idea of a hypothetical spoken proto-hebrew.

Quotes from a gospel? The first mention of a gospel is from around 120AD and the first mention of four of them in by inference from a word used from about 180AD. As the gospels themselves are not a credible source it is not reasonable to create arguments based upon them. The gospels are in the same category as the Septuagint. No one knows who created them, when they were created or why they were created. We can guess but there is no evidence. All we know about all of them is from religious traditions about them and those traditions do not have who, when or why answers either. Fully realizing all of it is baseless and starting over is the only credible approach to discussing them.

We know by about the 1st c. AD the Septuagint had been translated into the Hebrew as most of the books are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One can take the incomprehensibility of the "hebrew" in some of the books as an indication the language was still developing.

As to the claim of some rabbi adopting a liturgical language full time is rather extreme but those folks were always religious fanatics. It appears an essential job skill.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

When the Judeans appear in history they are speaking Aramaic. Their "sacred" texts are written using Aramaic script. The inscriptions found in the region, including the mentions of Yahweh and his Ashara are in Phoenician script. There are simply not enough non-biblical samples to establish an independent "hebrew" language outside of liturgical writings and all of those date from after the Septuagint.

i agree with you, just as there are no classical arabic inscriptions predating the quran.  that doesn't automatically mean the language was invented by muhammad, nor does it mean that no form of arabic was spoken before the quran was written.  along the same lines, the fact that we have no examples of "biblical" hebrew predating the second century C.E. does not automatically mean a group of rabbis pulled it out of thin air.

It appears to me from the evidence Arabic spread with Islam and that it was other than a local language of east shore of the Red Sea is not in evidence. That it spread to all that WE CALL Arabia is about as likely as we know it spread to North Africa. What we call Arabia is Arabia Deserta which by our is implicitely all of Arabia. It was not all considered A. Deserta back then. Even today, were it not for present day political boundaries the east coast of Arabia should really be considered part of Persia.

Quote:
]if your only argument, however, is that hebrew would not have been spoken by the "israelites" of the hebrew bible, whoever they were and wherever they came from, then yes, i agree with you.  i also say that's nothing new or shocking to most bible scholars who aren't bound by a religious agenda.

As there is no evidence any Israelites or Hebrews ever existed that first sentence cannot be said. We know only that the bible stories first appear in Greek in the Septuagint talking about people and events for which there is no evidence. With that there is no way to distinguish the stories from tales of the Land of Oz or Atlantis.

As I see it these bible scholars are more like Star Trek fans who who rationalize the discrepencies and contradictions in the original series save they pretend they are not working with a poorly editted collection of fiction.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
There is also no evidence for any babylonian captivity either.

correction, there is no extra-biblical evidence.  if you consider the bible completely worthless as any kind of historical evidence, fair enough, but i would say that in itself is an irrational prejudice, especially considering it's unlikey the babylonians would have bothered trumpeting their conquest of such an insignificant people anyway.

Until there are archaeological confirmation of the bible stories they are worthless as history. On top of that much of what has been discovered makes the bible stories impossible. One has to face the reality and deal with it as is.

Consider Egypt and the huge quantity of archaeological evidence. When they find an inscription it is reasonably taken as regarding the people who built the buildings. When it comes to bibleland there is not one single thing found which suggests anything like the civilization described in the bible stories and quite often finds make the stories impossible.

It is not prejudice on my part. It is dealing with reality. It would be fascinating to actually find a modest civilization in bibleland which could have "aggrandized" itself into the bible stories but not even that has been found. Percentagewise bibleland is the most dug place in the world as all civil construction counts as a dig when nothing is uncovered. Think what it would be like to find a civil recounting of these stories -- Solomon gripiong about warring priests for example.

Quote:
it's hardly fair to take it for granted that a people cannot be trusted at all to know where they came from.  if we follow this logic, we have to discount everything that historians at least tentatively accept about the ancient histories of almost all peoples, especially peoples who were not empire-builders.  in the ancient world, almost all peoples recorded their origins either in scripture or epic poetry.  of course such evidence is suspect, but until any contrary evidence is found, it is the only evidence we have.  even archeological evidence, which is lauded so universally, is usually interpreted in the light of this kind of evidence.

Pardon? Who might you be talking about? I cannot think of an origin story that does not have gods involved and most all of them claim they were always where they lived when creating their origin stories. And those are the ones we know of because of writing they left thousands of years ago when they were closer to their origin.

When it comes to bibleland even believers are willing to eliminate the parts they can no longer claim with a straight face. In the case of the bible that means all of the origin has been shitcanned in favor of possibly nomads who settled the hills. So even in the case under discussion there is no knowledge of their origins.

Quote:
but if you want to throw out everything the jews say about themselves, fair enough.  precisely where do you propose they came from, and what is your evidence? 

I can only go on what is in evidence. Jews came from Judaea. That is what Jews means. I see no mystery there. They do not appear in real history until Pompey arrives in the region. The only stories which remotely connect with the real history of the region are Maccabes. Therefore that is where they started. The question then becomes where they got the Yahweh cult and that too was imposed by the Maccabes and was modestly spread to Galilee and Iodumaea by his son and grandson by military conquest. This reads like a real origin else an entire history funnels down to the Maccabes before it starts to spread again. Yet this "spread again" requires conquest to force them to adopt circumcision and Judean customs. Obviously these conquered people did not have these customs nor circumcize before conquest. That fits in nicely with no mention by Herodotus.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:No one

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

No one knows who created them, when they were created or why they were created.

yes, but we can say this for the majority of ancient texts.  almost nothing, including things like plato's dialogues, homer's epics, etc., was likely to have been written by who tradition says, where tradition says, and when tradition says.  yet that doesn't stop historians and even archeologists from using the iliad, for example, to speculate about how the mycenaeans fought wars, the equipment they used, etc., and often there is no archeological confirmation.  there is no archeological refutation either.  when there is, the speculation must be either abandoned or modified.

it's not so plainly self-evident that all scripture is rubbish when it comes to history and that everything was invented as one giant conspiracy, especially a language.  it's the language i'm interested in talking about, not the historical validity of the hebrew bible narratives.  in order to do so, let me make certain i have your position ansolutely clear. 

position: hebrew is a language that sprang directly from greek and does not predate it in any way.  furthermore, there is a distinct possibility that it was created artificially by a religious elite.

so far, this seems to be your evidence:

1. a lack of written hebrew before the septuagint.

2. allegedly overwhelming similarities between greek and hebrew.

now, please understand me, i have no particular desire to "defend" hebrew.  however, i would like to point out that while hebrew script was a later development (from the phoenician alphabet, as i said before), there are examples of classical hebrew written in a deritive of the phoenician alphabet (paleo-hebrew) on 21 ostraka dating from the sixth century BCE at tel ed-duweir.  this is the same hebrew (though of course not the same script) that a good portion of the hebrew bible is written in.  then there are older (1050 BCE), more tentative discoveries of an ostrakon at khirbet qeiyafa written in proto-canaanite script, but it's debated as to whether or not it is archaic hebrew.  perhaps you've heard of these discoveries and have a rebuttal, which i will happily read.  also, the nash papyrus (150 BCE) i told you about is in block hebrew script, not aramaic.  granted, it's after the greek conquests, but it still demonstrates an organic development of the script as well as the language.

also, if i have misrepresented your position or you have additional evidence please correct me.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
No one knows who created them, when they were created or why they were created.

yes, but we can say this for the majority of ancient texts.  almost nothing, including things like plato's dialogues, homer's epics, etc., was likely to have been written by who tradition says, where tradition says, and when tradition says.  yet that doesn't stop historians and even archeologists from using the iliad, for example, to speculate about how the mycenaeans fought wars, the equipment they used, etc., and often there is no archeological confirmation.  there is no archeological refutation either.  when there is, the speculation must be either abandoned or modified.

Yes, it is quite true those questions are largely unanswered for many ancient writings but I do not wish to recite the differences right now although I can show the answers are largely known. Rather let me point out essentially none of those "unknowns" is filled in with religious traditions which give "answers" to those questions without the least physical evidence.

The Iliad is a useful example here. For centuries the opinion was that it was a fanciful as the Odyssey and only after whathisname found (the wrong) something did people think it might be based upon a real event. It was only in the last year or so that a wall was found at the right age and of the right circumference to match the time it took to drag a body around it. There are still huge questions left as to the extent of the poetic license in this poetry with the majority holding most of it exercises that license.

OTOH, the Septuagint started with a religious tradition of the inspired word of god describing real events with believers kicking and screaming all through the retreat and retaining everything that is not explicit BS. That is the major difference I am trying to emphasize.

If the Septuagint had always been taken as was the Iliad and if acceptance of any part of it were based upon what has actually be found by archaeologists none of it would be taken seriously today.

Quote:
it's not so plainly self-evident that all scripture is rubbish when it comes to history and that everything was invented as one giant conspiracy, especially a language.  it's the language i'm interested in talking about, not the historical validity of the hebrew bible narratives.  in order to do so, let me make certain i have your position ansolutely clear.

I see nothing self-evident at all. I see nothing more historical in it than any historical fantasy written today. And from all the archaeology we know all the good parts are BS. Only the creationist style believer tries to retain anything prior to Isaiah or "second temple" period.

The Hebrew language is really quite simple to address, the oldest known samples of it were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dating roughly late 1st c. BC to early 1st c. AD. These are written in the Aramaic script which is also used by modern Israel. Older sources from bibleland itself use the Phoenician script and even though described as "proto or paleo-Hebrew" are only called Hebrew because of where found and when dated and if the Septuagint says the Jews ruled that area at that time. The only inscription ever found which are close to "confirming" the Septuagint are mentions of the two gods of the land, Yahweh and Ashara. To me that is an absolute contradiction of the religious traditions about the Septuagint stories.

Quote:
position: hebrew is a language that sprang directly from greek and does not predate it in any way.  furthermore, there is a distinct possibility that it was created artificially by a religious elite.

No. I suggest it is a local pidgin of Aramaic and Greek. We do know both languages were spoken in the region since Alexander. It is simply a working amalgam of the two that naturally arose among those who were dealing with the Greeks. It may have arose in the big cities that saw a lot of Greeks. There was no standardization of languages in those days. Standarizing a language across a country was not only an invention of the 19th c. AD it was only first possible in that century.

I am not wedded to this idea. The problem is there is no other source of "hebrew" older than those DSS nor is there any mention of it as a language by anyone. There are no earlier examples of it other than the bible-based "proto" identifications which could as easily and perhaps better called proto-Phoenician or proto-Aramaic.

Even the name is grossly misleading. Way back when in the dim, dark past of only about one century ago it was a common religious tradition that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. There in Exodus the people are first called Hebrews for some unexplained reason. Moses was a Hebrew. Therefore he wrote in Hebrew. Therefore the language is called Hebrew. So just using that name biases the discussion. Overcoming the built in biases has to be overcome to discuss this subject.

So how are we to explain a "language" that suddenly appears in history without antecedents?

How are we to explain a written language of a people from a region which shows none of the other signs of being a literate culture?

Quote:
so far, this seems to be your evidence:

1. a lack of written hebrew before the septuagint.

2. allegedly overwhelming similarities between greek and hebrew.

One could debate for a long time just how much Greek is to be found in it. That book I mentioned may be the work of a crackpot but from what I have read he is not and does have his ducks in line and constructs a case as a lawyer should. He gives more examples that can be dismissed as coincidence. On top of that Greek and "hebrew" are supposed to be two different language families so any admixture at all has to be explained. If the explanation is to be exposure to Greek influence then the language arose after Alexander. QED

Quote:
now, please understand me, i have no particular desire to "defend" hebrew.  however, i would like to point out that while hebrew script was a later development (from the phoenician alphabet, as i said before), there are examples of classical hebrew written in a deritive of the phoenician alphabet (paleo-hebrew) on 21 ostraka dating from the sixth century BCE at tel ed-duweir.  this is the same hebrew (though of course not the same script) that a good portion of the hebrew bible is written in.  then there are older (1050 BCE), more tentative discoveries of an ostrakon at khirbet qeiyafa written in proto-canaanite script, but it's debated as to whether or not it is archaic hebrew.  perhaps you've heard of these discoveries and have a rebuttal, which i will happily read.  also, the nash papyrus (150 BCE) i told you about is in block hebrew script, not aramaic.  granted, it's after the greek conquests, but it still demonstrates an organic development of the script as well as the language.

also, if i have misrepresented your position or you have additional evidence please correct me.

I am not into selling my conclusions rather to establish the facts which are in evidence. I do speculate from that but the facts in evidence rule. At times there is a problem with what is claimed to be facts as is the case with these supposed older examples of proto and paleo. The oldest examples of what they are supposed to be paleo of are in the DSS which is roughly around the year "zero." Now of someone wants to claim something from 1050BC is a paleo of that then it is like looking at English from 1066 AD and claiming it is paleo modern English. We do have many examples of that and it is also "paleo" Danish, Swedish and German as well as English. You can do the same with any modern language to similar laughable conclusions. This it not the way lanuages evolve. It does not describe the real process we can map in detail from records over the last 1000 years.

Examples from a mere six centuries ago, comparable to 600BC and the year zero are almost equally laughable.

So here we have a region whose only signs of literacy are found in bibleland cities which have an identified culture clearly not related to the bible stories. And these signs are not that great indicating more the work of circuit riding scribes rather than an indigenous culture. That is they are mostly letters of communication between the cities and mainly to Egypt. An indigenous culture has mostly contracts, followed by government decrees with religious documents the least common. If we are to accept a bibleland origin of the OT then we have the religious documents the most common, no government decrees, and a few contracts so simple unimportant that they are literally written on broken pottery, that is, nothing special developed for contracts. How do we explain bibleland being an entirely different type of literate culture that only produced religious texts? Where did this wealth come from? Scribes in most cultures have to earn a living which is one reason for so many contracts. If only religious documents were produced and NO government documents despite a long line of "kings" recounted in the religious stories, then who was supporting a staff of full time people doing nothing but copying and preserving these bible books?

The biases are very difficult to overcome. We tend to think of everyone being able to read and write and cannot readily imagine a culture where reading was rare and writing a profession like lawyers today. Also when we think of that culture we are biased by Cecille B. DeMille type images of bibleland. Even interior shots with walls made of large stones in the background are misleading. Not one single building connected with this bible culture has been found. All the previous "discoveries" from times when there was no critical evaluation have been discredited save for a few diehards -- the fake biblical archaeologists.

A few years back I heard Mel Gibson was thinking of making movie on the Samson story. This was back when he was in the middle of the Jesus movie controversy and part of his hype was the meticulous research so that everything was authentic including all props, clothing and things most producers had made generic. Check the Roman military gear for a better idea of what it was like at that time. Anyway shortly after hearing this I realized that would be impossible for any OT story as there is absolutely nothing to support any prop of interest. How did their soldier dress? No idea whatsoever. What did their building look like? Same problem. What kind of decorations were there? No idea.

Egypt has a rough outline of how it will parcel out the rights to archaeologists to dig what and where for the next century. It also believes there will be a few centuries more left to dig after that. In bibleland everything of interest has been dug and the couple left are known to be associated with other identified cultures.

By what magic does one conjure "HEBREW" into existence?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml