The invention of the Jewish people
Offline For those who are convinced there is something called a Jewish People this should be of interest unless they consider it antisemitism of some sort. Haaretz is the oldest hebrew language newspaper in Palestine/Israel and, as a sign of purity, does not employ a single non-Jew. Le Monde Diplomatique is an internationally respected journal but its value here is an article by the jewish, Israeli author himself.
This is relevant to the invention of the jewish religion in that the responses I receive to the idea of an invented religion have an underlying assumption of a "people" even before the religion appeared. This idea is not only contrary to Judaism itself but is an idea invented barely a century ago and never existed in the religion or the people who professed the religion aka the Mosaic confession.
This also gives the lie to the idea of "secuilar" Jews. A Jew is only a person who follows the religion. No atheist nor agnostic can be a Jew. They can only be a Jew if they profess to Zionism as their religion which is the ideology that invented the idea of a "jewish" people.
For what it is worth, I read Haaretz six days a week and the Jerusalem Post (the oldest English language newspaper in Palestine/Israel several times a week. There have been no objections or refutations of this book and it remains a best seller in Israel. People are not buying it to burn it.
In both cases I say Palestine/Israel because both were in publication before Jews wiped Palestine off of the map after 2500+ years. Who would care if Israel is wiped off the map? No one misses Palestine?
======================================
Haaretz
Thu., February 28, 2008 Adar1 22, 5768
Israel Time: 17:34 (EST+7)
An Invention Called 'The Jewish People'
Israel's Declaration of Independence states that the Jewish people arose in
the Land of Israel and was exiled from its homeland. Every Israeli
schoolchild is taught that this happened during the period of Roman rule, in
70 CE. The nation remained loyal to its land, to which it began to return
after two millennia of exile. Wrong, says the historian Shlomo Zand, in one
of the most fascinating and challenging books published here in a long time.
There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile also
never happened - hence there was no return. Zand rejects most of the stories
of national-identity formation in the Bible, including the exodus from Egypt
and, most satisfactorily, the horrors of the conquest under Joshua. It's all
fiction and myth that served as an excuse for the establishment of the State
of Israel, he asserts.
According to Zand, the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and
most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country. The number of
those exiled was at most tens of thousands. When the country was conquered
by the Arabs, many of the Jews converted to Islam and were assimilated among
the conquerors. It follows that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs
were Jews. Zand did not invent this thesis; 30 years before the Declaration
of Independence, it was espoused by David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and
others.
If the majority of the Jews were not exiled, how is it that so many of them
reached almost every country on earth? Zand says they emigrated of their own
volition or, if they were among those exiled to Babylon, remained there
because they chose to. Contrary to conventional belief, the Jewish religion
tried to induce members of other faiths to become Jews, which explains how
there came to be millions of Jews in the world. As the Book of Esther, for
example, notes, "And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the
fear of the Jews fell upon them."
Zand quotes from many existing studies, some of which were written in Israel
but shunted out of the central discourse. He also describes at length the
Jewish kingdom of Himyar in the southern Arabian Peninsula and the Jewish
Berbers in North Africa. The community of Jews in Spain sprang from Arabs
who became Jews and arrived with the forces that captured Spain from the
Christians, and from European-born individuals who had also become Jews. The
first Jews of Ashkenaz (Germany) did not come from the Land of Israel and
did not reach Eastern Europe from Germany, but became Jews in the Khazar
Kingdom in the Caucasus. Zand explains the origins of Yiddish culture: it
was not a Jewish import from Germany, but the result of the connection
between the offspring of the Kuzari and Germans who traveled to the East,
some of them as merchants.
We find, then, that the members of a variety of peoples and races, blond and
black, brown and yellow, became Jews in large numbers. According to Zand,
the Zionist need to devise for them a shared ethnicity and historical
continuity produced a long series of inventions and fictions, along with an
invocation of racist theses. Some were concocted in the minds of those who
conceived the Zionist movement, while others were offered as the findings of
genetic studies conducted in Israel.
Prof. Zand teaches at Tel Aviv University. His book, "When and How Was the
Jewish People Invented?" (published by Resling in Hebrew), is intended to
promote the idea that Israel should be a "state of all its citizens" - Jews,
Arabs and others - in contrast to its declared identity as a "Jewish and
democratic" state. Personal stories, a prolonged theoretical discussion and
abundant sarcastic quips do not help the book, but its historical chapters
are well-written and cite numerous facts and insights that many Israelis
will be astonished to read for the first time.
The mosquito from Kiryat Yam
On March 27, 1948, a meeting was held in Hiafa concerning the fate of the
Bedouin of Arab al-Ghawarina in the Haifa area. "They must be removed from
there, so that they, too, will not add to our troubles," Yosef Weitz, of the
Keren Kayemeth (Jewish National Fund), wrote in his personal diary. Two
months later, Weitz reported to the organization's director, "Our Haifa Bay
has been evacuated completely and there is hardly a remnant of those who
encroached our border." They were probably expelled to Jordan; some were
allowed to remain in the village of Jisr al-Zarqa. The fate of the Arab
al-Ghawarina Bedouin has recently made the headlines thanks to Shmuel Sisso,
mayor of the Haifa suburb of Kiryat Yam. He has filed a complaint with the
police against Google. The reason is the addition that one of the site's
surfers, a resident of Nablus, attached to the center of Kiryat Yam in the
world satellite photo, stating that the city is built on the ruins of a
village that was destroyed in 1948, Arab al-Ghawarina. Sisso's complaint
says that this is slanderous.
The facts are as follows: The lands of the Zevulun Valley were purchased in
the 1920s by the JNF and by various construction companies, among them one
called Gav Yam. The Zionist Archives have the plan for the establishment of
Kiryat Yam, dated 1938, and a letter from 1945 states that there were
already 100 homes there. Government maps from the British Mandate period
identify the territory on which Kiryat Yam was built by two names: Zevulun
Valley and Ghawarina. Thus it appears that this was not a settlement but an
area in which Bedouin resided.
The Web site of the Israeli organization Zochrot (Remembering) states that
there were 720 people at the site in 1948 and that the area was divided
among three kibbutzim: Ein Hamifratz, Kfar Masaryk and Ein Hayam, today Ein
Carmel.
This story has been making the rounds on the Internet and drawing responses,
which can be summed up as follows: "If Sisso is suing Google because they
stated that he is living on a destroyed Arab village, the implication is
that he thinks this is something bad." Sisso, a lawyer of 57 who is
identified with Likud and was formerly Israeli consul general in New York,
says, "I don't think there is anything bad about it, but other people might
think it is bad, especially people abroad, and that is liable to hurt Kiryat
Yam, because people will not want to invest here. Since we are not sitting
on a Palestinian village, why should we have to suffer for no reason?"
Moroccan-born, Sisso arrived in Israel in 1955. "I wandered around the whole
region and I saw no trace of anyone's having been here before us and
supposedly expelled." He asked an American law professor how, if at all,
Google could be sued for slander or for damages. This, he says, is the
contribution of Kiryat Yam to the struggle against the right of return (of
the Palestinian refugees).
It could turn out to be the most riveting trial since Ariel Sharon sued Time
magazine, but mayor Sisso has no illusions: "Me against Google is like a
mosquito against an elephant," he said this week.
Who America belongs to
Two professors, Gabi Shefer and Avi Ben-Zvi, were guests this week on
Yitzhak Noy's "International Hour" current events program on Israel Radio.
The anchor, sounding slightly concerned, asked whether the achievements of
Barack Obama show that the United States no longer belongs to the white man.
Prof. Shefer confirmed this: Obama is an immigrant, he said. Prof. Ben-Zvi
asked to add a remark: Gabi Shefer is right, he said. They are both wrong.
If Obama were an immigrant, he would not be eligible to be elected
president. He was born in Honolulu, some two years after Hawaii became the
50th state of the union.
==============================================
Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
September 2008
Zionist nationalist myth of enforced exile
Israel deliberately forgets its history
An Israeli historian suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the
expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north
Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East
By Schlomo Sand
Every Israeli knows that he or she is the direct and exclusive descendant of
a Jewish people which has existed since it received the Torah ([25]1) in
Sinai. According to this myth, the Jews escaped from Egypt and settled in
the Promised Land, where they built the glorious kingdom of David and
Solomon, which subsequently split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
They experienced two exiles: after the destruction of the first temple, in
the 6th century BC, and of the second temple, in 70 AD.
Two thousand years of wandering brought the Jews to Yemen, Morocco, Spain,
Germany, Poland and deep into Russia. But, the story goes, they always
managed to preserve blood links between their scattered communities. Their
uniqueness was never compromised.
At the end of the 19th century conditions began to favour their return to
their ancient homeland. If it had not been for the Nazi genocide, millions
of Jews would have fulfilled the dream of 20 centuries and repopulated Eretz
Israel, the biblical land of Israel. Palestine, a virgin land, had been
waiting for its original inhabitants to return and awaken it. It belonged to
the Jews, rather than to an Arab minority that had no history and had
arrived there by chance. The wars in which the wandering people reconquered
their land were just; the violent opposition of the local population was
criminal.
This interpretation of Jewish history was developed as talented, imaginative
historians built on surviving fragments of Jewish and Christian religious
memory to construct a continuous genealogy for the Jewish people. Judaism’s
abundant historiography encompasses many different approaches.
But none have ever questioned the basic concepts developed in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. Discoveries that might threaten this picture of a
linear past were marginalised. The national imperative rejected any
contradiction of or deviation from the dominant story. University
departments exclusively devoted to “the history of the Jewish people”, as
distinct from those teaching what is known in Israel as general history,
made a significant contribution to this selective vision. The debate on what
constitutes Jewishness has obvious legal implications, but historians
ignored it: as far as they are concerned, any descendant of the people
forced into exile 2,000 years ago is a Jew.
Nor did these official investigators of the past join the controversy
provoked by the “new historians” from the late 1980s. Most of the limited
number of participants in this public debate were from other disciplines or
non-academic circles: sociologists, orientalists, linguists, geographers,
political scientists, literary academics and archaeologists developed new
perspectives on the Jewish and Zionist past. Departments of Jewish history
remained defensive and conservative, basing themselves on received ideas.
While there have been few significant developments in national history over
the past 60 years (a situation unlikely to change in the short term), the
facts that have emerged face any honest historian with fundamental
questions.
Founding myths shaken
Is the Bible a historical text? Writing during the early half of the
19th century, the first modern Jewish historians, such as Isaak Markus Jost
(1793-1860) and Leopold Zunz (1794-1886), did not think so. They regarded
the Old Testament as a theological work reflecting the beliefs of Jewish
religious communities after the destruction of the first temple. It was not
until the second half of the century that Heinrich Graetz (1817-91) and
others developed a “national” vision of the Bible and transformed Abraham’s
journey to Canaan, the flight from Egypt and the united kingdom of David and
Solomon into an authentic national past. By constant repetition, Zionist
historians have subsequently turned these Biblical “truths” into the basis
of national education.
But during the 1980s an earthquake shook these founding myths. The
discoveries made by the “new archaeology” discredited a great exodus in the
13th century BC. Moses could not have led the Hebrews out of Egypt into the
Promised Land, for the good reason that the latter was Egyptian territory at
the time. And there is no trace of either a slave revolt against the
pharaonic empire or of a sudden conquest of Canaan by outsiders.
Nor is there any trace or memory of the magnificent kingdom of David and
Solomon. Recent discoveries point to the existence, at the time, of two
small kingdoms: Israel, the more powerful, and Judah, the future Judea. The
general population of Judah did not go into 6th century BC exile: only its
political and intellectual elite were forced to settle in Babylon. This
decisive encounter with Persian religion gave birth to Jewish monotheism.
Then there is the question of the exile of 70 AD. There has been no real
research into this turning point in Jewish history, the cause of the
diaspora. And for a simple reason: the Romans never exiled any nation from
anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Apart from enslaved
prisoners, the population of Judea continued to live on their lands, even
after the destruction of the second temple. Some converted to Christianity
in the 4th century, while the majority embraced Islam during the 7th century
Arab conquest.
Most Zionist thinkers were aware of this: Yitzhak Ben Zvi, later president
of Israel, and David Ben Gurion, its first prime minister, accepted it as
late as 1929, the year of the great Palestinian revolt. Both stated on
several occasions that the peasants of Palestine were the descendants of the
inhabitants of ancient Judea ([26]2).
Proselytising zeal
But if there was no exile after 70 AD, where did all the Jews who have
populated the Mediterranean since antiquity come from? The smokescreen of
national historiography hides an astonishing reality. From the Maccabean
revolt of the mid-2nd century BC to the Bar Kokhba revolt of the 2nd century
AD, Judaism was the most actively proselytising religion. The Judeo-Hellenic
Hasmoneans forcibly converted the Idumeans of southern Judea and the
Itureans of Galilee and incorporated them into the people of Israel. Judaism
spread across the Middle East and round the Mediterranean. The 1st century
AD saw the emergence in modern Kurdistan of the Jewish kingdom of Adiabene,
just one of many that converted.
The writings of Flavius Josephus are not the only evidence of the
proselytising zeal of the Jews. Horace, Seneca, Juvenal and Tacitus were
among the Roman writers who feared it. The Mishnah and the Talmud ([27]3)
authorised conversion, even if the wise men of the Talmudic tradition
expressed reservations in the face of the mounting pressure from
Christianity.
Although the early 4th century triumph of Christianity did not mark the end
of Jewish expansion, it relegated Jewish proselytism to the margins of the
Christian cultural world. During the 5th century, in modern Yemen, a
vigorous Jewish kingdom emerged in Himyar, whose descendants preserved their
faith through the Islamic conquest and down to the present day. Arab
chronicles tell of the existence, during the 7th century, of Judaised Berber
tribes; and at the end of the century the legendary Jewish queen Dihya
contested the Arab advance into northwest Africa. Jewish Berbers
participated in the conquest of the Iberian peninsula and helped establish
the unique symbiosis between Jews and Muslims that characterised
Hispano-Arabic culture.
The most significant mass conversion occurred in the 8th century, in the
massive Khazar kingdom between the Black and Caspian seas. The expansion of
Judaism from the Caucasus into modern Ukraine created a multiplicity of
communities, many of which retreated from the 13th century Mongol invasions
into eastern Europe. There, with Jews from the Slavic lands to the south and
from what is now modern Germany, they formed the basis of Yiddish
culture ([28]4).
Prism of Zionism
Until about 1960 the complex origins of the Jewish people were more or less
reluctantly acknowledged by Zionist historiography. But thereafter they were
marginalised and finally erased from Israeli public memory. The Israeli
forces who seized Jerusalem in 1967 believed themselves to be the direct
descendents of the mythic kingdom of David rather than – God forbid – of
Berber warriors or Khazar horsemen. The Jews claimed to constitute a
specific ethnic group that had returned to Jerusalem, its capital, from
2,000 years of exile and wandering.
This monolithic, linear edifice is supposed to be supported by biology as
well as history. Since the 1970s supposedly scientific research, carried out
in Israel, has desperately striven to demonstrate that Jews throughout the
world are closely genetically related.
Research into the origins of populations now constitutes a legitimate and
popular field in molecular biology and the male Y chromosome has been
accorded honoured status in the frenzied search for the unique origin of the
“chosen people”. The problem is that this historical fantasy has come to
underpin the politics of identity of the state
of Israel. By validating an
essentialist,
ethnocentric definition of Judaism it encourages a
segregation that separates Jews from non-Jews – whether Arabs, Russian
immigrants or foreign workers.
Sixty years after its foundation, Israel refuses to accept that it should
exist for the sake of its citizens. For almost a quarter of the population,
who are not regarded as Jews, this is not their state legally. At the same
time, Israel presents itself as the homeland of Jews throughout the world,
even if these are no longer persecuted refugees, but the full and equal
citizens of other countries.
A global ethnocracy invokes the myth of the eternal nation, reconstituted on
the land of its ancestors, to justify internal discrimination against its
own citizens. It will remain difficult to imagine a new Jewish history while
the prism of Zionism continues to fragment everything into an ethnocentric
spectrum. But Jews worldwide have always tended to form religious
communities, usually by conversion; they cannot be said to share an
ethnicity derived from a unique origin and displaced over 20 centuries of
wandering.
The development of historiography and the evolution of modernity were
consequences of the invention of the nation state, which preoccupied
millions during the 19th and 20th centuries. The new millennium has seen
these dreams begin to shatter.
And more and more academics are analysing, dissecting and deconstructing the
great national stories, especially the myths of common origin so dear to
chroniclers of the past.
Shlomo Sand is professor of history at Tel Aviv university and the author of
Comment le people juif fut inventé (Fayard, Paris, 2008)
Translated by Donald Hounam
([30]1) The Torah, from the Hebrew root yara (to teach) is the founding text
of Judaism. It consists of the first five books of the Old Testament (the
Pentateuch): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
([31]2) See David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Eretz Israel in the past
and present, 1918 (in Yiddish), and Jerusalem, 1980 (in Hebrew); Yitzhak Ben
Zvi, Our population in the country, Executive Committee of the Union for
Youth and the Jewish National Fund, Warsaw, 1929 (in Hebrew).
([32]3) The Mishnah, regarded as the first work of rabbinic literature, was
drawn up around 200 AD. The Talmud is a synthesis of rabbinic discussions on
the law, customs and history of the Jews. The Palestinian Talmud was written
between the 3rd and 5th centuries; the Babylonian Talmud was compiled at the
end of the 5th century.
([33]4) Yiddish, spoken by the Jews of eastern Europe, was a Germano-Slavic
language incorporating Hebrew words.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Double entry was a Dutch invention.
Not according to my copy of the Kama Sutra.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:While he is not addressing the time period I am he does address the time period of the invention of the idea that Jews are connected by something other than religion. He identifies that as an invention of Zionism. That means the idea did not exist prior to that invention which can be no earlier than the invention of Zionism a bit over a century ago.To repeat, it is anachronistic to apply the idea of a group connected by other than religoin to any earlier time.
You are still confusing Sand's discussion of what happened after the Romans came into contact with the people of Judea and two wars with the period we are dealing with. What happened with the believers of Judaism in the diaspora after that time is not part of the issue.
After losing two wars to Rome nothing happened to them that didn't happen to any other provence that lost two wars to Rome. I hope you are not referring to the mythical Diaspora.
A diaspora prior to Roman times was assumed by Sand. Read your own citations.
They were not expelled from the land only from Jerusalem proper. We know that happened because after Rome rebuilt the city statuse of Astarte are not found in the trash dumps. And that is also one of the many ways we know they were not monotheists in Roman times.
We are talking about before the Roman period. There were Jews in Babylon. See the Murashu and Egibi archives. There were Jews in Egypt. See the Elephantine letters. There were Jews in Greece. Look up the funerary epigraphy. The Pseudo-Aristeas letter assumes Jews in Alexandria. There was a diaspora before Roman times. You are evincing more denial.
Save for the losers taken as slaves everyone who left Judea did so voluntarily. They were held together solely by the religion. It is also an unsupported myth that it was the only religion in Judea. Exercising my right to return the favor of taking bible books as having historical fact as you do I point out there are several mention of pigs being raised in the gospels. One has to ask who was eating them.Nor is there any historical or archaeological reason to assume the region ever had a single belief system regardless of what it might have been. However if you have real physical evidence outside of tradition please feel free to present it. There is a specific refutation of the claim that Jews were forced to leave Judea from the 4th c. so that myth is quite old.
One doesn't need a single belief system. The Hebrew bible shows that that wasn't the case. You might read it some time, then find out what was under "every green tree".
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As it is an invented religion no postulate is necessary as no connection is necessary.You can repeat this however much you like, but it is pretty meaningless. You've already been told that all religions are invented. It doesn't help you here or in our other discussion.
What I have been told was nothing new and I addressed that before I was unnecessarily re-enlightened. Invented religions have an identifiable time and usually place of origin. Traditional religions like the pantheons from Persia to Rome and Egypt do not.
You are inventing a category of "traditional religions". Persia didn't have a traditional pantheon. The Zoroastrian religion was monotheistic. That was the religion supported by the Persian kings.
The Yahwistic religion existed in the 9th century BCE. Check out Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom.
They have no identifiable ... [stuff omitted] ...in traditional religions.
A response would just aid your penchant for tangents.
spin wrote:What we can see is that you don't understand the significance of the text you were trying to make points from. If you don't want to deal meaningfully with the issues related to the existence of a state of Yehud (on and off at least from the time of Ahaz to Aristobulus II, when the state lost its independence for the last time), there's not much point putting up these smoke screens.A state of Yehud? The only named people we know of from non-bibical sources are the Palestinians as mentioned by Herodotus. We know of Astarte's temple in jurusalem into the 2nd c. AD and of her worship in that city.
Then you aren't interested in the Yehud coins from the Persian period, are you? What's evidence when you already believe in your fantasy? And you aren't interested in the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions which talk of Yehud either. They're just inconvenient.
There is no evidence from any time in history that the "jews" were ever held together by other than religion. By your reasoning today's Palestinians are also Jews even though they have different religions.
This is a veiled return to the Roman era interest of the book you haven't read in order to avoid dealing with the evidence for a Judea before the Roman period, which you just, well, umm, deny.
Do you really so desperately need to rub out the past as it appears or are you just trolling as Rook thought?
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Double entry was a Dutch invention.
Not according to my copy of the Kama Sutra.
Ernst Schwangenstucke taught them all they knew.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline DamnDirtyApe wrote:Awww...I thought this thread was going to be about the Dreidel or double entry bookkeeping.
Double entry was a Dutch invention.
Not according to my copy of Pyle and White.
It appears double entry accounting is an Italian invention growing out of the work of Leonardo of Pisa who introduced Arabic numerals to Europe. The Italian banks somewhere in the 14th century began using this method notably from Venice. Luca Paciola would refine the system by the end of the 15th century. Or so say my accounting books.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:While he is not addressing the time period I am he does address the time period of the invention of the idea that Jews are connected by something other than religion. He identifies that as an invention of Zionism. That means the idea did not exist prior to that invention which can be no earlier than the invention of Zionism a bit over a century ago.To repeat, it is anachronistic to apply the idea of a group connected by other than religoin to any earlier time.
You are still confusing Sand's discussion of what happened after the Romans came into contact with the people of Judea and two wars with the period we are dealing with. What happened with the believers of Judaism in the diaspora after that time is not part of the issue.
After losing two wars to Rome nothing happened to them that didn't happen to any other provence that lost two wars to Rome. I hope you are not referring to the mythical Diaspora.
A diaspora prior to Roman times was assumed by Sand. Read your own citations.
And Romans went to live in the provences therefore there was a Roman diaspora. And Greeks went to live ouside of Greece in Alexander's and Rome's emires. Therefore there was a Greek diaspora. Europeans left Europe to live in the New World therefore there is a European diaspora.
If you wish to apply a particular term to Judeans choosing to live some place else it applies to all other groups who choose to live something else meaning there is nothing special about it. It does not embody the mythology of being forced to leave in any of those cases.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:They were not expelled from the land only from Jerusalem proper. We know that happened because after Rome rebuilt the city statuse of Astarte are not found in the trash dumps. And that is also one of the many ways we know they were not monotheists in Roman times.We are talking about before the Roman period. There were Jews in Babylon. See the Murashu and Egibi archives. There were Jews in Egypt. See the Elephantine letters. There were Jews in Greece. Look up the funerary epigraphy. The Pseudo-Aristeas letter assumes Jews in Alexandria. There was a diaspora before Roman times. You are evincing more denial.[/spin]
I am simply declining to give a special name for something that was nothing special and in fact common. Beyond that there is nothing "jewish" in any of those references so I have no idea why you are mentioning them again. I have invited you to post from them what specifically you think indicates something identifiably jewish but so far you have been silent. I do not accept the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Save for the losers taken as slaves everyone who left Judea did so voluntarily. They were held together solely by the religion. It is also an unsupported myth that it was the only religion in Judea. Exercising my right to return the favor of taking bible books as having historical fact as you do I point out there are several mention of pigs being raised in the gospels. One has to ask who was eating them.Nor is there any historical or archaeological reason to assume the region ever had a single belief system regardless of what it might have been. However if you have real physical evidence outside of tradition please feel free to present it. There is a specific refutation of the claim that Jews were forced to leave Judea from the 4th c. so that myth is quite old.
One doesn't need a single belief system. The Hebrew bible shows that that wasn't the case. You might read it some time, then find out what was under "every green tree".
Only archaeological evidence matters. A collection of books of magic is a joke not evidence.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As it is an invented religion no postulate is necessary as no connection is necessary.You can repeat this however much you like, but it is pretty meaningless. You've already been told that all religions are invented. It doesn't help you here or in our other discussion.
What I have been told was nothing new and I addressed that before I was unnecessarily re-enlightened. Invented religions have an identifiable time and usually place of origin. Traditional religions like the pantheons from Persia to Rome and Egypt do not.
You are inventing a category of "traditional religions". Persia didn't have a traditional pantheon. The Zoroastrian religion was monotheistic. That was the religion supported by the Persian kings.
Zoroastrian was not the dominant religion of Persia merely a large sect. It was in fact invented. It is not monotheist although it has been fashionable to claim it is and demote the Lord of Dark to an adversarial character rather than the equal of the Lord of Light. However it is an invented religion by its own tradition and from what arkie facts have been found in the region. It was the first and one of the very few religions declared inspired because its prayers were the same even though they were not written down. Thus they were determined to be a "people of the book."
spin wrote:The Yahwistic religion existed in the 9th century BCE. Check out Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom.Again a reference without a recitation of the facts upon which such a claim is made. Please feel from to post exactly what convinced you when you reviewed that material.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:They have no identifiable ... [stuff omitted] ...in traditional religions.A response would just aid your penchant for tangents.
I gave the differences between an invented and a traditional religion. You do not object the the differences. Being unable to find grounds for objection you dismiss the differences without comment. If you wish to contribute to the discussion do so.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:What we can see is that you don't understand the significance of the text you were trying to make points from. If you don't want to deal meaningfully with the issues related to the existence of a state of Yehud (on and off at least from the time of Ahaz to Aristobulus II, when the state lost its independence for the last time), there's not much point putting up these smoke screens.A state of Yehud? The only named people we know of from non-bibical sources are the Palestinians as mentioned by Herodotus. We know of Astarte's temple in jurusalem into the 2nd c. AD and of her worship in that city.
Then you aren't interested in the Yehud coins from the Persian period, are you? What's evidence when you already believe in your fantasy? And you aren't interested in the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions which talk of Yehud either. They're just inconvenient.
I am very interested in you producing evidence of exactly what you are talking about. Please be specific in your response. Do not keep it a secret.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There is no evidence from any time in history that the "jews" were ever held together by other than religion. By your reasoning today's Palestinians are also Jews even though they have different religions.This is a veiled return to the Roman era interest of the book you haven't read in order to avoid dealing with the evidence for a Judea before the Roman period, which you just, well, umm, deny.
If the author does not know what he wrote it is difficult to deal with the evidence you are unwilling to present of this pre-Roman evidence.
spin wrote:Do you really so desperately need to rub out the past as it appears or are you just trolling as Rook thought?spin
There is a difference between the past and beliefs about the past. In the last century educated people have discarded most of the pre-20th c. beliefs about bibleland as nonsense. A century ago you would be responding the same to me for saying Exodus never happened. You are on the trailing edge of the retreat from EVERYTHING in the OT. You simply do not appear to know it.
It is necessary to discard all the crap of tradition to see what is left. Believers have been in constant retreat on this matter for over a century. They are STILL retreating. That you imagine the retreat has ended in their time has been been the delusion of all believers over the last century.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Do us all a favor and read the book, In Search of "Ancient Israel", by Philip Davies.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline Do us all a favor and read the book, In Search of "Ancient Israel", by Philip Davies.
spin
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Present the evidence yourself if you think so much of it. As you have not even read it yourself I will give you a few days to correct that deficiency before you reply.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:Do us all a favor and read the book, In Search of "Ancient Israel", by Philip Davies.
spin
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Don't confuse a suggestion with an appeal. It indicates siege mentality.
Present the evidence yourself if you think so much of it.
That doesn't do any good. You are not interested in evidence. You don't cite any; you don't notice any cited for you; and you only go through the motions asking for it, as you've proven you're not interested in anything other than your conjecturing about the "bibleland".
As you have not even read it yourself I will give you a few days to correct that deficiency before you reply.
Do cite it, please. It'll be a first from you. You have thus far eschewed scholarship like the plague.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline Am I the only one getting tired of all these TLDR threads that are without evidence?
- Login to post comments
Offline Am I the only one getting tired of all these TLDR threads that are without evidence?
How does one produce evidence for a book review?
It should be clear to atheists that anything in favor of religion bears the burden of evidence. Pointing out the absence of evidence is a given.
After one dismisses the religion it is quite odd for those in retreat to try to salvage the "people" when in fact they cannot show the idea of a "people" is any older than zionism. If there is a problem all one has to do is produce evidence of a "people" separate from followers of a religion prior to zionism and the game is over.
The entire history of Christian Europe against those of the Mosaic confession has been centered on conversion, a change of religion. By Jewish law a person who has been a Jew remains a Jew until there is a conversion to another religion after which the person is no longer a Jew. Thus it is clear it is a religion only.
Believers have been retreating in the face of physical evidence for over a century. I do not accept that people who claim to be atheists really are when they try to salvage a "people" separate from followers of the religion. The idea of an atheist Jew is as laughable as an atheist Christian.
Genetically Sephardim and Palestinians are the same people. Neither are related to the Ashkenazim. The primitive, racist concept of a "people" by ancestry eliminates all Ashkenazim from being Jews and makes the Palestinians into Jews regardless of their religion.
A bit of history might be instructive. Way back when I was only interested in debunking Christianity. I had lots of supporters. Then one day I made a passing remark about Moses and Exodus being a myth. The support not only vanished they took umbrage at such apostasy.
By analogy this is like agreeing Jesus was no more than an intinerent but insisting upon his civil authority to dictate religion as a the rightful heir of King David.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:Do us all a favor and read the book, In Search of "Ancient Israel", by Philip Davies.
spin
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Don't confuse a suggestion with an appeal. It indicates siege mentality.
If there is no evidence in support of your religious beliefs in it, why do you recommend it? And if there is such evidence why not present it as you have read it? This passes the test of an appeal to authority if in fact you believe it contains evidence in favor of your beliefs. It it does not then it is no more than a diversionary tactic.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Present the evidence yourself if you think so much of it.That doesn't do any good. You are not interested in evidence. You don't cite any;
So your reason for presenting no evidence in favor of your person beliefs about the OT is that I have no interest in it. How will you know until you try? There is nothing like a believer in a corner.
you don't notice any cited for you; and you only go through the motions asking for it, as you've proven you're not interested in anything other than your conjecturing about the "bibleland".
When it comes to any claim whatsoever the positive claim bears the burden of evidence. When it comes to religion it is necessary to keep that in mind at all times.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As you have not even read it yourself I will give you a few days to correct that deficiency before you reply.Do cite it, please. It'll be a first from you. You have thus far eschewed scholarship like the plague.
spin
You did not take the time I so graciously offered you.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:Do us all a favor and read the book, In Search of "Ancient Israel", by Philip Davies.
spin
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Don't confuse a suggestion with an appeal. It indicates siege mentality.
If there is no evidence in support of your religious beliefs in it, why do you recommend it?
You will not process any evidence given to you by anyone over the internet. You have refused repeatedly to interact with the evidence I've provided, so I thought you might look at something, uh, independent of this dialog. Obviously your head is buried so far in the sand, that there is no way you'll see daylight.
And if you cannot deal with an agnostic intelligently, then you cannot deal with anyone intelligently.
And if there is such evidence why not present it as you have read it?
Reread the two threads on your evidence-free Greek written Hebrew bible proposal. I've given you lots of evidence. You are simply in a state of permanent denial.
I have cited Assyrian records, Babylonian records, Persian indications, coin indications, Judahite indications and you have ignored them all, not an intelligent response to any evidence just babble about bibleland and pack of lies. All I can think of -- if you are not a troll -- is that you are blind and to humor your theories someone must read only that which you want to hear.
This passes the test of an appeal to authority if in fact you believe it contains evidence in favor of your beliefs. It it does not then it is no more than a diversionary tactic.
You have no appeal. Your dogma is simply a surrogate religion.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Present the evidence yourself if you think so much of it.That doesn't do any good. You are not interested in evidence. You don't cite any;
So your reason for presenting no evidence in favor of your person beliefs about the OT is that I have no interest in it.
Your rhetoric is hollow.
How will you know until you try? There is nothing like a believer in a corner.
Except one who won't open their eyes.
spin wrote:you don't notice any cited for you; and you only go through the motions asking for it, as you've proven you're not interested in anything other than your conjecturing about the "bibleland".When it comes to any claim whatsoever the positive claim bears the burden of evidence.
All you seem to know is how to pretend to talk the talk.
When it comes to religion it is necessary to keep that in mind at all times.spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As you have not even read it yourself I will give you a few days to correct that deficiency before you reply.Do cite it, please. It'll be a first from you. You have thus far eschewed scholarship like the plague.
spin
You did not take the time I so graciously offered you.
You will keep up with this evidenceless crap indefinitely, apparently because you have nothing better to offer nor the vision to see when you are peddling rubbish.
I think by now your pseudo-scholarship is sunk. Just ask anyone who's struggled through your threads.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:Do us all a favor and read the book, In Search of "Ancient Israel", by Philip Davies.
spin
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Don't confuse a suggestion with an appeal. It indicates siege mentality.
If there is no evidence in support of your religious beliefs in it, why do you recommend it?
You will not process any evidence given to you by anyone over the internet. You have refused repeatedly to interact with the evidence I've provided, so I thought you might look at something, uh, independent of this dialog. Obviously your head is buried so far in the sand, that there is no way you'll see daylight. And if you cannot deal with an agnostic intelligently, then you cannot deal with anyone intelligently.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:And if there is such evidence why not present it as you have read it?Reread the two threads on your evidence-free Greek written Hebrew bible proposal. I've given you lots of evidence. You are simply in a state of permanent denial. I have cited Assyrian records, Babylonian records, Persian indications, coin indications, Judahite indications and you have ignored them all, not an intelligent response to any evidence just babble about bibleland and pack of lies. All I can think of -- if you are not a troll -- is that you are blind and to humor your theories someone must read only that which you want to hear.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:This passes the test of an appeal to authority if in fact you believe it contains evidence in favor of your beliefs. It it does not then it is no more than a diversionary tactic.You have no appeal. Your dogma is simply a surrogate religion.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Present the evidence yourself if you think so much of it.That doesn't do any good. You are not interested in evidence. You don't cite any;
So your reason for presenting no evidence in favor of your person beliefs about the OT is that I have no interest in it.
The position I take has been supported with evidence. I've shown that the text itself shows that it was written in Hebrew. I've shown that there were Yahwist Hebrews living in Judah from well before 600 BCE. It is sufficient to show that they were capable of writing their own traditions in the following centuries. You only have a ragtag bunch of dogmas to support your baseless thesis. Your rhetoric is hollow.
In all of your showing you appear to have missed the things you point to are different in the Hebrew translation than in the original Greek. But in classic circular reasoning you claim preeminance for the Hebrew and judge the Greek against it rather than vice versa.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:How will you know until you try? There is nothing like a believer in a corner.Except one who won't open their eyes.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:you don't notice any cited for you; and you only go through the motions asking for it, as you've proven you're not interested in anything other than your conjecturing about the "bibleland".When it comes to any claim whatsoever the positive claim bears the burden of evidence.
You don't believe that. You have presented no evidence for your dumb claim that the Hebrew bible was written by Greeks. Whereas, against your claims, I've shown from various sources that there was a Judah and belief in Yahweh around 600BCE. All you seem to know is how to pretend to talk the talk.
When all else fails make up a foolish claim and shoot it down. I have specifically said no one knows who wrote either version. I certainly did not say the Greeks wrote it. I said the original was written in Greek as it is the first to appear in history. There is no evidence of any other version older than it in any other language. Argumentation is not evidence despite your desire it were.
Showing the existence of a god has no bearing upon the existence of a religion. It is the same Yahweh as in Christianity and Islam which no one imagines are older than the official claims.
Your assertions regarding Judah were left with the absence of vowels and your best has been to assert there is no vowel drift in Hebrew and that we know the vowel pronunciations of several other ancient languages in the same way we know that vowels are pronunced the same in all English accents. One can only speculate if you would make such an absurd claim were not a religion involved.
It is still not comprehensible that one would make this claim when we have the easily dateable invention of the idea of a "jewish people" independent of a religion. When does the idea first appear in history and who uses it? In the 20th c. and by Zionists.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:All you offer is religious commitment to your lunacy. Rational people will weigh up evidence. You will not. You will keep up with this evidenceless crap indefinitely, apparently because you have nothing better to offer nor the vision to see when you are peddling rubbish. I think by now your pseudo-scholarship is sunk. Just ask anyone who's struggled through your threads. spinWhen it comes to religion it is necessary to keep that in mind at all times.spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As you have not even read it yourself I will give you a few days to correct that deficiency before you reply.Do cite it, please. It'll be a first from you. You have thus far eschewed scholarship like the plague.
spin
You did not take the time I so graciously offered you.
I do not make the mistake of judging the response of others to what I post. You should learn to avoid it. It is rarely what you expect.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline In all of your showing you appear to have missed the things you point to are different in the Hebrew translation than in the original Greek. But in classic circular reasoning you claim preeminance for the Hebrew and judge the Greek against it rather than vice versa.
As you don't seem to have read what I said the first time, I'll give it to you again.
I see that patcleaver has cited one of my responses there on the issue of whether the Greek came before the Hebrew or not. My comment regarded the fact that Hebrew poetry sometimes featured an alphabetical acrostic, ie consecutive verses started with consecutive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The first started with ALEF, the second with BETH, and so on for all twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Sometimes things were more complex, as in the case of Ps 119 where groups of eight verses each started with one letter. There are not, however, just three psalms but a number of others (eg 25, 111, 112), as well as an alphabetical acrostic in Proverbs 31:10-31 and four the book of Lamentations -- chapters 1, 2 and 4 having 22 verses each, ie one letter per verse and ch.3 having 66 verses and one letter for every three verses.
Here's another range of evidence I posted for patcleaver:
And let me add a few more literary aspects of the Hebrew. Take a phrase like "terror, the pit, and the snare" in Isa 24:17. In Hebrew this is PXD WPXT WPX -- the /W/ is "and", so our three nouns are PXD, PXT and PX. In Ezekiel the phrase "and plague and blood" is repeat three times; this is in Hebrew WDBR WDM. Isaiah starts with "Hear, o heavens and listen, o earth", which is $M(W $MYM W:H-)ZYNY )RC, two alliterations $-$ [shin - shin] and )-) [alef - alef]. The Hebrew is abundant with alliteration in key phrases. Just think of the very beginning of the bible, BR$YT BR), bereshit bara, "at the beginning of creating...".
Why is Adam called Adam? The Greek won't help you make sense of the issue: you have to refer to the Hebrew: Adam was formed out of the ground [adamah]. Why is woman [)$H] called woman? Gen 2:23 tells us she is taken out of man [)Y$]. Why is Eve [XWH] called Eve? Because she is the mother of all life [XY], as explained in Gen 3:20.
Why does Daniel talk about the desolating abomination, $QWC $MM (note the alliteration)? The book deals with the pollution of the temple of Jerusalem when Antiochus IV tried to force the Jews to worship the Olympian Zeus, who was syncretically related to Baal Shamem, the "lord of heaven", though the Jews didn't use "Baal" in later literature, preferring to substitute insulting terms including "abomination" $QWC (see Hos 9:10) so $QWC $MM is an obvious reference to Baal Shamem in Hebrew, unreclaimable in Greek.
The only way one can justify Hebrew poetry is that it was written in Hebrew: you don't translate prose and end up with poetry.Now another writer, andrewcriddle, on patcleaver's thread noted that the Hebrew letters DALET and RESH were very similar in form and they can be confused by people, especially those whose command of the written language isn't perfect. He continued:
In 1 Samuel 13:3 the Septuagint refers to Servants rather than Hebrews due to misreading HEBRYM the Hebrews as HEBDYM the Servants.
In I Samuel 14:40 the Septuagint refers to being under subjection rather than being on one side or another due to misreading EBR region as EBD service or servitude.
In 1 Samuel 19:13 and 16 the Septuagint refers to using a Goat's Liver ! as a dummy rather than a Goatshair mattress due to misreading KBYR mattress as KBD liver.
This sort of material indicates that the Hebrew is primary and the Septuagint a (sometimes mistaken) translation.I should note another problem: Hebrew names sometimes change over time, becoming simplified. For example Joshua, YHW$(, becomes Jeshua, Y$W(; Jehohanan becomes Johanan. However, the Greek only has one form of each, ihsous and iwanan. This means that the Greek form can come from the Hebrew, but the Hebrew cannot come from the Greek. The Greek was translated late and the late form, eg Y$W(, was transformed into Greek, Y$W(, and that in turn was used for the earlier form of the Hebrew. Yet another indicator that the Greek came from the Hebrew.
The problems for the Greek first theory occur throughout the Hebrew bible. It is far simpler to see that the Hebrew came first. It then was copied enough to separate into three basic manuscript forms, one similar to what would be the masoretic text, one a precursor to the Samaritan bible and one similar to what would become the Greek text.
Instead of dealing with this evidence, your response to started as follows:
Not being a linguist nor even playing one on television I do not approach it from that direction.
You stated that you are unable to deal with the evidence, so you ignored it. Now you are having a sort of second bite at the cherry with claims about circular reasoning. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate your claims. And perhaps you'd like to make counter-proposals as to the evidence, citing how the Greek first theory better suits the evidence from the two versions of the text. But if you cannot deal with the evidence I've already provided, do you think you can do a better job from the Greek linguistic perspective? Do try. I can help you with your errors.
spin wrote:You don't believe that. You have presented no evidence for your dumb claim that the Hebrew bible was written by Greeks. Whereas, against your claims, I've shown from various sources that there was a Judah and belief in Yahweh around 600BCE. All you seem to know is how to pretend to talk the talk.When all else fails make up a foolish claim and shoot it down. I have specifically said no one knows who wrote either version. I certainly did not say the Greeks wrote it. I said the original was written in Greek as it is the first to appear in history. There is no evidence of any other version older than it in any other language. Argumentation is not evidence despite your desire it were.
Showing the existence of a god has no bearing upon the existence of a religion. It is the same Yahweh as in Christianity and Islam which no one imagines are older than the official claims.
Your assertions regarding Judah were left with the absence of vowels and your best has been to assert there is no vowel drift in Hebrew and that we know the vowel pronunciations of several other ancient languages in the same way we know that vowels are pronunced the same in all English accents. One can only speculate if you would make such an absurd claim were not a religion involved.
It is still not comprehensible that one would make this claim when we have the easily dateable invention of the idea of a "jewish people" independent of a religion. When does the idea first appear in history and who uses it? In the 20th c. and by Zionists.
As usual there is no content here for me to respond to.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline ...
You stated that you are unable to deal with the evidence, so you ignored it. Now you are having a sort of second bite at the cherry with claims about circular reasoning. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate your claims. And perhaps you'd like to make counter-proposals as to the evidence, citing how the Greek first theory better suits the evidence from the two versions of the text. But if you cannot deal with the evidence I've already provided, do you think you can do a better job from the Greek linguistic perspective? Do try. I can help you with your errors.
...
spin
I stated you are working from sources which themselves used the OT as their only guide in assigning meanings.
And I did get involved in this digression even though back in the beginning I said the people who created the OT could as likely have used your preferred authorities as the source of the names they gave people and places in their fiction.
Even if your authorities are correct, which is fine with me, there is still no way to eliminate them as one of the sources for the names they invented.
The only way to know is to find inscriptions in bibleland which in fact name these same people and places. There is much else that would help but "what else can it be" based upon the OT is not admissable.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline ...
You stated that you are unable to deal with the evidence, so you ignored it. Now you are having a sort of second bite at the cherry with claims about circular reasoning. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate your claims. And perhaps you'd like to make counter-proposals as to the evidence, citing how the Greek first theory better suits the evidence from the two versions of the text. But if you cannot deal with the evidence I've already provided, do you think you can do a better job from the Greek linguistic perspective? Do try. I can help you with your errors.
...
spin
I stated you are working from sources which themselves used the OT as their only guide in assigning meanings.
And I did get involved in this digression even though back in the beginning I said the people who created the OT could as likely have used your preferred authorities as the source of the names they gave people and places in their fiction.
Even if your authorities are correct, which is fine with me, there is still no way to eliminate them as one of the sources for the names they invented.
The only way to know is to find inscriptions in bibleland which in fact name these same people and places. There is much else that would help but "what else can it be" based upon the OT is not admissable.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:...
You stated that you are unable to deal with the evidence, so you ignored it. Now you are having a sort of second bite at the cherry with claims about circular reasoning. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate your claims. And perhaps you'd like to make counter-proposals as to the evidence, citing how the Greek first theory better suits the evidence from the two versions of the text. But if you cannot deal with the evidence I've already provided, do you think you can do a better job from the Greek linguistic perspective? Do try. I can help you with your errors.
...
spin
I stated you are working from sources which themselves used the OT as their only guide in assigning meanings.
And I did get involved in this digression even though back in the beginning I said the people who created the OT could as likely have used your preferred authorities as the source of the names they gave people and places in their fiction.
Even if your authorities are correct, which is fine with me, there is still no way to eliminate them as one of the sources for the names they invented.
The only way to know is to find inscriptions in bibleland which in fact name these same people and places. There is much else that would help but "what else can it be" based upon the OT is not admissable.
None of this deals with what you were asked to deal with. Try again, but a little harder.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline [mod error: hit "edit" instead of quote - seeking to restore post -Wil]
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:...
You stated that you are unable to deal with the evidence, so you ignored it. Now you are having a sort of second bite at the cherry with claims about circular reasoning. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate your claims. And perhaps you'd like to make counter-proposals as to the evidence, citing how the Greek first theory better suits the evidence from the two versions of the text. But if you cannot deal with the evidence I've already provided, do you think you can do a better job from the Greek linguistic perspective? Do try. I can help you with your errors.
...
spin
I stated you are working from sources which themselves used the OT as their only guide in assigning meanings.
And I did get involved in this digression even though back in the beginning I said the people who created the OT could as likely have used your preferred authorities as the source of the names they gave people and places in their fiction.
Even if your authorities are correct, which is fine with me, there is still no way to eliminate them as one of the sources for the names they invented.
The only way to know is to find inscriptions in bibleland which in fact name these same people and places. There is much else that would help but "what else can it be" based upon the OT is not admissable.
None of this deals with what you were asked to deal with. Try again, but a little harder.
spin
I am dealing with the issue which I raised...
You were responding to an ongoing discussion, which you had engaged in. Now you're just being pedantic.
...and supported by posting reviews of a book which is not yet available in English.
Materials which you showed you were using inappropriately. The book whose reviews you cited deals with a post-Roman development. You simply retroject them into an earlier era. You can't hum and hah your way out of your errors.
Here is Sand from the review:
According to Zand, the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and
most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country. The number of those exiled was at most tens of thousands. When the country was conquered by the Arabs, many of the Jews converted to Islam and were assimilated among the conquerors. It follows that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews. Zand did not invent this thesis; 30 years before the Declaration of Independence, it was espoused by David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and others.
Sand's interest is clearly post-Roman. Your attempts at generalizing this material is misguided at best, and more probably simply tendentious personal propaganda.
Reading what Sand says, "the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country". The whole nation of the Jews was not sent into exile, only some tens of thousands. Sand doesn't support you at all. He disagrees with you for to him there was a nation of the Jews.
Diversions are not of interest.
Unfortunately diversions are all you offer.
There is only a Jewish religion and the only Jews are its followers. The zionist animals invented a Jewish people because they were atheists. According to Israeli sources such as haaretz.com and jpost.com religious zionism arose in the 1970s and is still a minority stream even in Israel.Those are the facts that are on the table. They cannot be changed at whim.
Facts are things that you have a lot of trouble isolating and understanding. You've made a mess out of what Sand says because you are too burdened with your own bias to read what he is really dealing with.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:...
You stated that you are unable to deal with the evidence, so you ignored it. Now you are having a sort of second bite at the cherry with claims about circular reasoning. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate your claims. And perhaps you'd like to make counter-proposals as to the evidence, citing how the Greek first theory better suits the evidence from the two versions of the text. But if you cannot deal with the evidence I've already provided, do you think you can do a better job from the Greek linguistic perspective? Do try. I can help you with your errors.
...
spin
I stated you are working from sources which themselves used the OT as their only guide in assigning meanings.
And I did get involved in this digression even though back in the beginning I said the people who created the OT could as likely have used your preferred authorities as the source of the names they gave people and places in their fiction.
Even if your authorities are correct, which is fine with me, there is still no way to eliminate them as one of the sources for the names they invented.
The only way to know is to find inscriptions in bibleland which in fact name these same people and places. There is much else that would help but "what else can it be" based upon the OT is not admissable.
None of this deals with what you were asked to deal with. Try again, but a little harder.
spin
I am dealing with the issue which I raised...
You were responding to an ongoing discussion, which you had engaged in. Now you're just being pedantic.
Real and perceived deviation from the subject depends upon who does and the potential benefit to argumentation.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:...and supported by posting reviews of a book which is not yet available in English.Materials which you showed you were using inappropriately. The book whose reviews you cited deals with a post-Roman development. You simply retroject them into an earlier era. You can't hum and hah your way out of your errors.
Here is Sand from the review:
According to Zand, the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and
most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country. The number of those exiled was at most tens of thousands. When the country was conquered by the Arabs, many of the Jews converted to Islam and were assimilated among the conquerors. It follows that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews. Zand did not invent this thesis; 30 years before the Declaration of Independence, it was espoused by David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and others.Sand's interest is clearly post-Roman. Your attempts at generalizing this material is misguided at best, and more probably simply tendentious personal propaganda.
Reading what Sand says, "the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country". The whole nation of the Jews was not sent into exile, only some tens of thousands. Sand doesn't support you at all. He disagrees with you for to him there was a nation of the Jews.
Today we mix the terms Jews and Judeans when they refer to the same thing. The derivation is through the Greek Ioadumea if I remember correctly. The "nation of Judea" makes no sense whatsoever. Do you mean the subjects of King Herod? I took the liberty of posting another article giving a short history of the zionist invention of the "jewish race" and so forth.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Diversions are not of interest.Unfortunately diversions are all you offer.
It would be better to demonstrate that than to merely talk about it. There are certainly thousands of sources for "jewish" material prior to the appearance of Zionism. You could quote from them showing there was a concept of group independent of religion if it in fact existed. But you prefer to use the present day confused usage of words derived from "jew" as though they in fact apply to the facts under discussion.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There is only a Jewish religion and the only Jews are its followers. The zionist animals invented a Jewish people because they were atheists. According to Israeli sources such as haaretz.com and jpost.com religious zionism arose in the 1970s and is still a minority stream even in Israel.Those are the facts that are on the table. They cannot be changed at whim.
Facts are things that you have a lot of trouble isolating and understanding. You've made a mess out of what Sand says because you are too burdened with your own bias to read what he is really dealing with.
spin
I am familiar with this subject. You should be also. I said it was easy to trace the origin of the idea of Jews independent of religion to Zionism. The new article gives a summary of the political maneouvering. It is a history of a political movement taking over a religion.
The author does not go into post 1948 issues. In the US at least, while the rich were supporting Zionism along with "blue boxes" to rip off jewish children Israel did not get majority Jewish support until after the 1967 war. The prior support was largely among Jews in NYC who arrived after the failed 1906 Bolshevik revolution. The only good thing out of that was we got Isaac Asimov. The terrorists who founded Israel largely came from the same parts of eastern Europe as the US immigrants. Consider it a family thing.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:...and supported by posting reviews of a book which is not yet available in English.Materials which you showed you were using inappropriately. The book whose reviews you cited deals with a post-Roman development. You simply retroject them into an earlier era. You can't hum and hah your way out of your errors.
Here is Sand from the review:
According to Zand, the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country. The number of those exiled was at most tens of thousands. When the country was conquered by the Arabs, many of the Jews converted to Islam and were assimilated among the conquerors. It follows that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews. Zand did not invent this thesis; 30 years before the Declaration of Independence, it was espoused by David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and others.Sand's interest is clearly post-Roman. Your attempts at generalizing this material is misguided at best, and more probably simply tendentious personal propaganda.
Reading what Sand says, "the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country". The whole nation of the Jews was not sent into exile, only some tens of thousands. Sand doesn't support you at all. He disagrees with you for to him there was a nation of the Jews.
Today we mix the terms Jews and Judeans when they refer to the same thing. The derivation is through the Greek Ioadumea if I remember correctly.
No, you don't remember correctly, it's utter bull. The form you cite you made up, perhaps mixing ioudaios with Idumea (Edom).
And your response is yet another tangent.
The "nation of Judea" makes no sense whatsoever.
Because you've turned your brain off.
Do you mean the subjects of King Herod? I took the liberty of posting another article giving a short history of the zionist invention of the "jewish race" and so forth.
You seem to suffer from short term memory loss.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Diversions are not of interest.Unfortunately diversions are all you offer.
It would be better to demonstrate that than to merely talk about it. There are certainly thousands of sources for "jewish" material prior to the appearance of Zionism. You could quote from them showing there was a concept of group independent of religion if it in fact existed. But you prefer to use the present day confused usage of words derived from "jew" as though they in fact apply to the facts under discussion.
I think you've bullshitted me too often too long. You seem to be unable to talk reasonably or logically. You continue to babble against the evidence of Assyrian inscriptions, Babylonian inscriptions, Aramaic communications from Elephantine to Jerusalem and the Persian rulers, Yehud coins, Jewish conflicts with the Seleucids, and a Jewish state under the Hasmoneans, which eventually gave way through a short Roman direct control to Herod. It's all there for your little eyes to consult, but you do this shame-faced ignorance of the evidence and pretend that it doesn't exist.
You seem to want to attack Zionism through a past you have insufficient knowledge about.
There is no point in dealing with your 20th century ravings which have nothing to do even with the misguided thread you started.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:No, you don't remember correctly, it's utter bull. The form you cite you made up, perhaps mixing ioudaios with Idumea (Edom). And your response is yet another tangent.spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:...and supported by posting reviews of a book which is not yet available in English.Materials which you showed you were using inappropriately. The book whose reviews you cited deals with a post-Roman development. You simply retroject them into an earlier era. You can't hum and hah your way out of your errors.
Here is Sand from the review:
According to Zand, the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country. The number of those exiled was at most tens of thousands. When the country was conquered by the Arabs, many of the Jews converted to Islam and were assimilated among the conquerors. It follows that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews. Zand did not invent this thesis; 30 years before the Declaration of Independence, it was espoused by David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and others.
Sand's interest is clearly post-Roman. Your attempts at generalizing this material is misguided at best, and more probably simply tendentious personal propaganda.
Reading what Sand says, "the Romans did not generally exile whole nations, and most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country". The whole nation of the Jews was not sent into exile, only some tens of thousands. Sand doesn't support you at all. He disagrees with you for to him there was a nation of the Jews.
Today we mix the terms Jews and Judeans when they refer to the same thing. The derivation is through the Greek Ioadumea if I remember correctly.
I have never claimed an idetic memory.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Because you've turned your brain off.The "nation of Judea" makes no sense whatsoever.
As the argument goes regarding Palestine, Judea was never a sovereign nation. Or are all arguments to be in favor of the OT fables?
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:You seem to suffer from short term memory loss.Do you mean the subjects of King Herod? I took the liberty of posting another article giving a short history of the zionist invention of the "jewish race" and so forth.
You are not even making a pretense of an exchange.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Diversions are not of interest.Unfortunately diversions are all you offer.
It would be better to demonstrate that than to merely talk about it. There are certainly thousands of sources for "jewish" material prior to the appearance of Zionism. You could quote from them showing there was a concept of group independent of religion if it in fact existed. But you prefer to use the present day confused usage of words derived from "jew" as though they in fact apply to the facts under discussion.
I think you've bullshitted me too often too long. You seem to be unable to talk reasonably or logically. You continue to babble against the evidence of Assyrian inscriptions, Babylonian inscriptions, Aramaic communications from Elephantine to Jerusalem and the Persian rulers, Yehud coins, Jewish conflicts with the Seleucids, and a Jewish state under the Hasmoneans, which eventually gave way through a short Roman direct control to Herod. It's all there for your little eyes to consult, but you do this shame-faced ignorance of the evidence and pretend that it doesn't exist.
The subject of this thread and the one on the invention of the jewish race is that it is a modern idea independent of the prior concept of Jews solely as those who are followers of the jewish religion. Prior to Zionism there is no other concept. Even the OT fables give only that definition. If you wish the fables to be true then they refer only to followers of the religion. Even their male deity says that.
You seem to want to attack Zionism through a past you have insufficient knowledge about.
Zionism damns itself. As opposed to most, with most including most self-proclaimed Zionists, I have taken the time to research Zionism by examining the actual writings of Zionists and their actions. This is opposed to learning the politically correct opinion of Zionism which masquerades as knowledge of Zionism.I have some nice quotes from terrorists such as Jabotinsky and Begin.
There is no point in dealing with your 20th century ravings which have nothing to do even with the misguided thread you started.
spin
You took exception to the idea of the creation of a jewish people and with my identification of Zionists as the creators of the idea. By chance a couple days ago an article is published describing some of the details of Zionist creation of the term. Note this article was published long after I cited the source of the creation.
It shows I am not the only person aware of the facts. As the Israeli prayer goes, Lord, give us peace ... but not yet.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Because you've turned your brain off.The "nation of Judea" makes no sense whatsoever.
As the argument goes regarding Palestine, Judea was never a sovereign nation. Or are all arguments to be in favor of the OT fables?
So, when Nebuchadrezzar attacked Judea it wasn't a sovereign nation?? What about the nation under John Hyrcanus I through to Aristobulus II?? Not a sovereign nation? On and on you persist with this rubbish. Get over it. There was a Judea which had its own sovereignty at least during two periods.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:You seem to suffer from short term memory loss.Do you mean the subjects of King Herod? I took the liberty of posting another article giving a short history of the zionist invention of the "jewish race" and so forth.
You are not even making a pretense of an exchange.
When you've got no evidence, why should I bother. I can repeat the evidence for you but I already have the idea that you don't take it in.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Diversions are not of interest.Unfortunately diversions are all you offer.
It would be better to demonstrate that than to merely talk about it. There are certainly thousands of sources for "jewish" material prior to the appearance of Zionism. You could quote from them showing there was a concept of group independent of religion if it in fact existed. But you prefer to use the present day confused usage of words derived from "jew" as though they in fact apply to the facts under discussion.
I think you've bullshitted me too often too long. You seem to be unable to talk reasonably or logically. You continue to babble against the evidence of Assyrian inscriptions, Babylonian inscriptions, Aramaic communications from Elephantine to Jerusalem and the Persian rulers, Yehud coins, Jewish conflicts with the Seleucids, and a Jewish state under the Hasmoneans, which eventually gave way through a short Roman direct control to Herod. It's all there for your little eyes to consult, but you do this shame-faced ignorance of the evidence and pretend that it doesn't exist.
The subject of this thread and the one on the invention of the jewish race is that it is a modern idea independent of the prior concept of Jews solely as those who are followers of the jewish religion. Prior to Zionism there is no other concept. Even the OT fables give only that definition. If you wish the fables to be true then they refer only to followers of the religion. Even their male deity says that.
This thread was one of your side attacks on the notion of a Jewish state. All you need do is accept that there was a Jewish state during the later Hasmonean period and during the time from Ahaz to the arrival of Nebuchadrezzar and stop the rest of your farting about.
spin wrote:You seem to want to attack Zionism through a past you have insufficient knowledge about.Zionism damns itself. As opposed to most, with most including most self-proclaimed Zionists, I have taken the time to research Zionism by examining the actual writings of Zionists and their actions. This is opposed to learning the politically correct opinion of Zionism which masquerades as knowledge of Zionism.I have some nice quotes from terrorists such as Jabotinsky and Begin.
This is your questionable politics, which interest me not at all. Is it politics that caused you to attempt to deny the existence of an ancient Judean state and a population that made up that state?
spin wrote:There is no point in dealing with your 20th century ravings which have nothing to do even with the misguided thread you started.You took exception to the idea of the creation of a jewish people and with my identification of Zionists as the creators of the idea. By chance a couple days ago an article is published describing some of the details of Zionist creation of the term. Note this article was published long after I cited the source of the creation.
It shows I am not the only person aware of the facts. As the Israeli prayer goes, Lord, give us peace ... but not yet.
Facts are not something you seem to care about. You'll use anything as a tool for you to attack the "bibleland" and its modern development. You have no interest in history or literary study of the bible. Your obsession with Zionism and the holocaust seems to be well known on internet. There also seems to be/have been a news group for you.
The reason why you seemed so brain-dead with regard to the evidence presented to you is that you simply weren't interested.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Because you've turned your brain off.The "nation of Judea" makes no sense whatsoever.
As the argument goes regarding Palestine, Judea was never a sovereign nation. Or are all arguments to be in favor of the OT fables?
So, when Nebuchadrezzar attacked Judea it wasn't a sovereign nation?? What about the nation under John Hyrcanus I through to Aristobulus II?? Not a sovereign nation? On and on you persist with this rubbish. Get over it. There was a Judea which had its own sovereignty at least during two periods.
There is no point to a further exchange in this matter.
I will continue to insist upon intrinsic physical evidence from bibleland and you will continue to insist anything you can construe from things hundreds of miles away from bibleland are conclusive.
Let us end this on a very unfriendly note.
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.
- Login to post comments
The scope of Sand's book revolves around the claimed mass-exile of the people who lived in Judea during the time of the Romans. This mass-exile didn't happen. That however, has not been the topic of A_Nony_Mouse's dismal attempts at negating the existence of a Jewish state either before the Babylonian exile (a state already displayed in recent threads on the Septuagint) or after it.
Let's look at just a cut from the review:
One might notice the conditional in the last sentence: "if they were among those exiled to Babylon". There is no negation of the Babylonian exile by Sand. Such an exile is assumed. In fact Sand isn't too interested in the period before Roman hegemony at all. But that doesn't matter to A_Nony_Mouse who merely tries to dragoon Sand into saying things he doesn't actually say.
This thread is a red herring.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
I bring in this REVIEW of a book and comment upon his book, you quote from the review, to point out the idea of a jewish people, which underlies the religious tradition of the origin of the OT you are defending, is something that was invented only a century ago and did not exist before then. The idea of connecting the adherents of the religion in ancient times to their ancestors in the region is an anachronism. The only thing which defines these people as a group is the religion. Nothing else.
Therefore implying there is a connection between the adherents to Judaism and their ancestors in the region is akin to the Latter Day Saints baptizing all the ancestors of new members. If their ancestors were not adherents of the religion of Judaism then they were not connected to the Jews.
That is as foolish as saying the Romans were the ancestors of and thus related to the Christians. You may also note the Catholic Church officially uses Latin and therefore the Romans were related to the Catholics.
Similarly regardless of any language found in bibleland that does not establish any connection to the group known as Jews.
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
You are merely confusing the purpose of this book with y our own unrelated purposes. The writer is talking about different things from you. He is not interested in the period you are trying to involve him in.
I'll allow you to postulate some more meaningful relationship between the religion and the culture that produced it. Your current explanations are meaningless.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
Awww...I thought this thread was going to be about the Dreidel or double entry bookkeeping.
While he is not addressing the time period I am he does address the time period of the invention of the idea that Jews are connected by something other than religion. He identifies that as an invention of Zionism. That means the idea did not exist prior to that invention which can be no earlier than the invention of Zionism a bit over a century ago.
To repeat, it is anachronistic to apply the idea of a group connected by other than religoin to any earlier time.
Your magnanimity in what you will allow me does not go unnoticed.
As it is an invented religion no postulate is necessary as no connection is necessary. None is needed to connect Joseph Smith to New York State. None is needed to connect L. Ron Hubbard to New York City. None is needed to connect Mohamed to the east coast of the Red Sea.
The religion was a primative departure from the norms of civilized religions of the time and even downright unsanitary in the Mikvah and genital mutilating traditions. We do not find religions so primirive in the Egyptian - Roman - Persian triangle.
As we do not find religions similarly primitive in the region it is clearly not an outgrowth of any. Nor do we find the practices the OT says other peoples practiced indicating one of the contributing authors had a Texas Chainsaw Massacre type of demented imagination.
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
Double entry was a Dutch invention.
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
Baruch Spinoza was Dutch, too. You saying he wasn't the product of Jews?
I'm kidding, of course. Thanks for the trivia.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
You are still confusing Sand's discussion of what happened after the Romans came into contact with the people of Judea and two wars with the period we are dealing with. What happened with the believers of Judaism in the diaspora after that time is not partof the issue.
You're welcome.
You can repeat this however much you like, but it is pretty meaningless. You've already been told that all religions are invented. It doesn't help you here or in our other discussion.
What we can see is that you don't understand the significance of the text you were trying to make points from. If you don't want to deal meaningfully with the issues related to the existence of a state of Yehud (on and off at least from the time of Ahaz to Aristobulus II, when the state lost its independence for the last time), there's not much point putting up these smoke screens.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
If it were not for trivia how would we know what to have an Inquisition for? Without trivia there is no perspective.
That is why I always try to post trivia.
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
After losing two wars to Rome nothing happened to them that didn't happen to any other provence that lost two wars to Rome. I hope you are not referring to the mythical Diaspora. They were not expelled from the land only from Jerusalem proper. We know that happened because after Rome rebuilt the city statuse of Astarte are not found in the trash dumps. And that is also one of the many ways we know they were not monotheists in Roman times.
Save for the losers taken as slaves everyone who left Judea did so voluntarily. They were held together solely by the religion. It is also an unsupported myth that it was the only religion in Judea. Exercising my right to return the favor of taking bible books as having historical fact as you do I point out there are several mention of pigs being raised in the gospels. One has to ask who was eating them.
Nor is there any historical or archaeological reason to assume the region ever had a single belief system regardless of what it might have been. However if you have real physical evidence outside of tradition please feel free to present it. There is a specific refutation of the claim that Jews were forced to leave Judea from the 4th c. so that myth is quite old.
[quote-spin]
You're welcome.
You can repeat this however much you like, but it is pretty meaningless. You've already been told that all religions are invented. It doesn't help you here or in our other discussion.
What I have been told was nothing new and I addressed that before I was unnecessarily re-enlightened. Invented religions have an identifiable time and usually place of origin. Traditional religions like the pantheons from Persia to Rome and Egypt do not. They have no identifiable time or place of origin and share so many similarities that the time to spread makes them prehistoric in origin.
And we can compare the style of the traditional religions to those of the invented religions. Zeus gave no rules, made no demands, nor appeared to give a damn about people. It is the same for all traditional gods of traditional religions. For invented religions there are demands, rules and intrusion into daily life. The latter are all the things that no one can rationally say why they might interest a god or gods but which have been used by rulers and priests to exploit those upon whom the rules are imposed.
That you do not appear to be able to grasp this difference appears to stem from your desire to believe the jewish religion is a traditional rather than invented religion. I would have thought you would have presented your argument for exceptionalism of the Judeans in having "unique" traditional religion.
Perhaps it is part of the culture of atheism in that it only makes a difference when it comes to invented religions. The worst that would come to an atheist in a society dominated by a traditional religion is to be thought dumb or off in the head. There are no rules imposed or to be broken in traditional religions.
A state of Yehud? The only named people we know of from non-bibical sources are the Palestinians as mentioned by Herodotus. We know of Astarte's temple in jurusalem into the 2nd c. AD and of her worship in that city.
There is no evidence from any time in history that the "jews" were ever held together by other than religion. By your reasoning today's Palestinians are also Jews even though they have different religions.
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