I apologize Jonathan. It must have just skipped my peripheral view. Wasn't trying to avoid it--even had to go back to see whom you were waiting for.
What's the earliest physical evidence of Judaism?
I don't want you to cite the time period the Bible suggests certain events happened in. I'm asking for the absolute earliest credible and substantial evidence of Israel or of Judaism in antiquity.
If there is no evidence for something having existed before a certain period, then it is not fair to hold someone's feet to the fire who says absolutely that it was so?
I'll even give you a couple hundred years of leniency even, seeing as how things to evolve and adapt over time and the mention of something somewhat implies that it existed before mention.
Using those guidelines, again, what's the earliest reference to Israel outside of the Bible?
Those are good point and hard questions. I'm not really asking for any leniency, just that we address each other with respect. In some cases, respect has gone out the window to the outhouse. (pun intended)
I hope it is OK to use some info from the Bible as a backdrop. For an example:
When Jacob (also known as Israel) reached Egypt, there was 66 people who had come with him. Gen 46:
26So the total number of Jacob's direct descendants who went with him to Egypt, not counting his sons' wives, was sixty-six. Obviously with a total of 66 people, we aren't going to have evidence of such people. To look for evidence of 66 people would be impossible IMO.
We also have the hurdle to overcome in reference to archaeology. It is a painstaking effort since there has been wars, destruction, floods, etc. There have been things that people said never happened and never existed, but then archaeological discoveries changed their position. I just searched the internet and here are some:
- The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
- The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
- It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
- Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting
on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out
by the discoveries of archaeology.
- King David and Solomon was thought of as a myth until they found a signet and the famous saying of House of David
My point is simply this. For one to simply say "It never existed" when these discoveries are relatively new, would be wrong IMO.
Then you have the problem of differing views of what is found. Example: Solomon's signet -- well, it could be a different Solomon or a Solomon of a smaller nation (or however else one wants to look at it). There will be disagreements until further discoveries nail it one way or the other.
So, if 66 went to Egypt and then grew under slavery, we would first have to look there and see about possibilities. Without spending too much time finding something on the internet, I simply went to the first one I found. I do not know the author but the general information is a "proposed" possibility that has been floated by many and argued against by others.
Joseph, Egypt and the Hyksos...
One could argue whether it is right and another could argue about it being wrong. With none of us having lived at that time, perspectives can abound. But it does match Biblical understanding and it remains that the information
may have been the first supportive documentation of the Israelites. (Dates are listed at the site)
My position is simply that many other religions are older than Judaism and have influenced it. In fact, as I have shown you in something as simple as a wiki-link, Judaism evolved out of the religions of Mesopotamia which very obviously predate it. The gods of the surrounding regions were already named so well before the first "Jew" ever claimed allegiance to Yahweh or El or Elohim....
Your claim, on the other hand is that Yahweh pre-existed, as the starter God/religion and this is evidenced by... the Bible. And the Bible is authoritative, you claim, because it's... the Bible... Where is your evidence for the Bible's authority on the topic of historical accuracy? It's filled with supposed Historical events, right? Where's the evidence for those events?
You're free to dance around this question further, or you could just attempt to answer it.
The statement of "you are free to dance" presupposes that people know everything and nothing ever changes. May I suggest that if my first point is obviously true, when discoveries are made that contradicted the consensus, that we should leave some room for correction?
You are correct that many other religions are older than Judaism because the bulk of it started with Moses. The question remains whether it influenced it or not. Whether it revolved around it or not, remains
an opinion. Similarities doesn't necessarily translate into influence.
In that so much of the Torah is contrary to the religions around it, one would be hard pressed that it evolved from it. For an example: Deut 12 basically says "DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT EVERY OTHER RELIGION IS DOING" (in that tone of voice). So how can one "evolve" when everything is contrary? For me, it doesn't seem logical.
No. Credible for me simply means supported by evidence.
If I were to say that Noah, for example, had fire-breathing dragons on the Ark, would you not ask for something to substantiate that claim? Would you not ask for evidence that fire-breathing dragons ever even existed? Or would you accept me simply saying "Well, it doesn't say that he didn't!"
My claim of fire breathing dragons would not be credible because there is absolutely nothing to back it up.
Good... I don't think there are fire breathing dragons.
You are generally correct. However, there was no proof of black holes but they still believed there were black holes. Time proved it out. If the theory is plausible, then lets investigate it instead of saying "I don't see black holes therefore they don't exist and I won't look for it". So in principle you are correct as long as we don't forget that theories can exist without support other than thought and ideas. Doesn't make the theory correct but, until properly rejected, but remains a theory if it has merit.
First, is Mesopotamia the only cradle of civilization, or are there several completely independent sites all over the globe that began to experience long lasting periods of cultivation and established cultural grown? Within this particular cradle of civilization that you're focusing on, do we or do we not know an awful lot about the people and places that are supposedly contemporary of the claims made in the Bible? Isn't it interesting then that there is this huge blind spot when it comes to evidence for the events that the Bible claims took place, and the events that are their very call to legitimacy?
You'll have to expand on this one.
Second, on Abraham, Isaac and Jacob... You claim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob living during a specific time period that is quite well-known and understood. We also know, quite well, the history of many of the people and places that surrounded the area that this mystical story supposedly took place. These guys, according to your own source material, are surrounded by civilizations and well-established religious practices that we can trace back nearly to their origin. Yet you would claim that your guys are the genesis of all other religions, and in fact of humanity itself... Yet you see no problem with your that idea?
Let's look at this in context. IF, and I say again, IF Genesis is correct and it started out monotheistic and then branched from there, there can be some similarities from the original--that was one of my statements. Another statement,
in context, was in reference to the word Adonai how it existed (in context of the Bible) before Judaism. So I have no problem with the word existing in other cultures.
If you can understand that many people and cultures would adopt the religious influence of those around them, and since it's well established that those cultures and religions predate the birth of Judaism, please explain again how Judaism was not influenced by the surrounding pagan landscape.
"In the beginning" of Judaism... no. Why? because it said "Don't do what all the others are doing". So how can it be birthed and influenced by it if it was completely different?
After, as it is written, they Israelites did begin to take on the other gods.
It can substantiated. I am not citing or quoting anything to you that is not verifiable.
You can, with a couple of plane tickets and for the cost of admission, go and see the evidence of the things that I am talking about. You can breath the air from the same room as the Merneptah Stele. for example. You can follow the citations and sources from the bibliography on each and every one of those pages, and read about what I'm trying to express to you. You can take a couple of weekends and spend some time on something even more in-depth but still simple, like Google Scholar, and search for those same references, artifacts, and ideas and read about them from their scholarly sources. You can compound on that knowledge by following the citations within the citations...Or you could read just one book that claims itself self-evident.
It's very simple and you don't have to take my word for it. All you have to do is go and check it out.
I'm sure you can substantiate your position in cases. However, I also realize that there is much interpretation in what we discover.
When you claim your source material as the Bible, and then make historical assumptions based on the mythologies contained therein, you have no fact checker to help you out. There's nothing, except the Bible itself, to validate those claims. If I were making the argument that I am right because I say I am right, then you have every reason to question that...Surely you see the connection between that example and what you're doing with the Bible as your only source.
However, the general viewpoint has been "I don't care if there are multiple records recorded by different people that has been collated into one book--they aren't historical".
Certainly you are correct. We haven't exactly interacted much and most of my statements have been with a fundamentalist Outhouse who doesn't really care to debate. So I don't debate him.
What I have done, however, is realize that more and more archaeological discoveries confirm what was written in the Bible. The more discoveries that confirm what was written, the more validity the Bible has. Like a theorem, the more examples that confirm the theorem the more trustworthy it becomes
Another thing: maybe your conviction that the Bible is 100% accurate and true is really sincere and heartfelt...well that's great. But it doesn't help your argument anymore. You're still left with the burden of proof that your source material is accurate to begin with. Again, I'll reference the fire-breathing dragons analogy. I could believe until I was blue in the face that fire-breathing dragons were on the ark - but does my belief change "reality"? (Note I'm using the Ark as a relatable example to you - not insinuating that there is any validity to the Ark fable.)
Agreed. Honestly, I have decided that "the burden of proof that your source material... is yours", is tiring with some truth in it. I have decided that when someone says "Your source of material is a myth" the burden of proof is on them since they made the first volley.
Usually its "Your source is a myth and now it your burden to prove me wrong". I call that baloney.
Your problem here is primary source versus secondary and even tertiary sources.
A relief inscribed on the wall of a pyramid, using your example, is a primary source. We can date the inscription, not only using what the original writers said was the date of the inscription but by verifying that date using several different methods. We can then look for other evidence of this hypothetical war in the places that the inscription said the war happened. If/when we find those other evidences, then we can accurately postulate that the war actually happened and that the inscription (and in some cases even the writer) is a credible source worth citing.
Here's the flipside of that, and how it relates to the Bible: If this hypothetical inscription that we are talking about made fantastic claims that were not supported anywhere else in history, and if it had no physical evidence to back it up, would you continue to rely on that hypothetical inscription for an accurate depiction of historical events?
Now ask yourself that same question again, remember that there is no primary source for the Bible...
If you think that's a false statement on my part, then please cite the oldest evidence of any part of the Torah, or Talmud.
Again... I have no problem supporting my position (as it should be). But when dealing with people who have no desire to debate--I don't try. There is no reason to.
Because the God of the Jews is an evolution of Canaanite gods, as were their gods an evolution of preceding ideas on the supernatural and so on and so on...
I eliminated the last paragraph... I didn't think it was that different or important. Hope you didn't mind.
Here you made a statement. I look at the differences between the two and I find it impossible how Judaism came out of that belief system. I don't find any supportive evidence to bridge the gap between the two.
Thank you for a though provoking effort.
We have covered a LONG list of items... I fear it is too long.