Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The figure has been bandied about here just recently, the poster knows who he is and also has come up numerous times by specifically YEC and literalists.
I once did an excel spreadsheet exercise using a three generations surving at any one time and 5 offspring reaching maturity and being able to have 5 kids of their own. Using the timeline from 70CE with two couples to today, we should have in excess of 150M jews and even taking the holocaust into account. The question of multiple exterminations seems to be undocumented. We only have a tenth of that figure worldwide. If we were to extrapolate other mythical claims, this figure would be far higher. Obviously my model is flawed and does not take every conceivable plague and possibility into account but it does raise doubts as to these huge exploits which IMO are mere embellished folklore.
The last stand at Masada ended in the folk taking their own lives in a mass suicide and that hardly paints a model to suggest these were warriors willing to fight to the bitter end.
History is written by the victors and we shall probably never know all truths barring the snippets that managed to survive. Mass literacy is only a recent phenomenon so prior to the mid 19th to early 20th centuries, much of what folk learned was by hearsay and what the literate deemed appropriate for us commoners to hear/understand.
Because literacy was for so long restricted to nobility and the affluent, it stands to reason, the few decided what we should know or believe.
Any alleged word of god should stand up to any scrutiny and hold its own but sadly it does not. One has to really do mental gymnastics to try and get some semblance of seeing it as sensible. The mere fact we have apologists apologising for the bible's obvious lack in consistency and accuracy should tell us there is something amiss. Also these apologists cannot seem to agree either so that should lead one to question their alleged divine influence/inspiration.
People are generally lazy and take it on faith what their pastor is telling them is truth(tm) the few that actually bother to critically examine scripture for themselves usually come away with a whole different perspective.
a few flaws in your (lack of) logic
1. there was mass male literacy amongst jews (which is cleary documented)
Quote:
The question of multiple exterminations seems to be undocumented.
2. a few things you missed (off the top of my head)
the genocide of the jews in Alexandria, the fall of Baitar, early Muslims killing of the jews in Medinah and other cities, Crusades, Black Plague, Spanish Expulsion, Chmielnicki massacres, the Massacre of Uman, ext.
if you don't know your ABC's for relatively recent Jewish History why should anyone care what you have to say about ancient Jewish history.
a few flaws in your (lack of) logic
1. there was mass male literacy amongst jews (which is cleary documented)
2. a few things you missed (off the top of my head)
the genocide of the jews in Alexandria, the fall of Baitar, early Muslims killing of the jews in Medinah and other cities, Crusades, Black Plague, Spanish Expulsion, Chmielnicki massacres, the Massacre of Uman, ext.
if you don't know your ABC's for relatively recent Jewish History why should anyone care what you have to say about ancient Jewish history.
Perhaps you missed the disclaimer that stated my model was flawed?
This is not the thread topic, the topic challenges the ancient claims.
my point is that if you don't understand the ABCs of modern jewish history and ideology you can't even begin to understand pre Roman Jewish history (for example when it comes to being able to read (which is an essential point to you're so called explanation) it's clear that most male jews were able to read going back to at least Roman Times and there's zero reason to believe that the same wasn't true in the Pre Roman times)
my point is that if you don't understand the ABCs of modern jewish history and ideology you can't even begin to understand pre Roman Jewish history (for example when it comes to being able to read (which is an essential point to you're so called explanation) it's clear that most male jews were able to read going back to at least Roman Times and there's zero reason to believe that the same wasn't true in the Pre Roman times)
That's a bad point. A knowledge of modern jewish history and ideology is not a requirement to understanding ancient Israelite history: the two are not equivalent, whether it concerns the religion under question (rabbinic Judaism vs ancient Israelite Mosaic Yahwism), the people under question (the ancient Israelites vs the later Jews), or the language (the various stages of Biblical Hebrew, it's script vs modern Hebrew, it's Aramaic-"square script). The latter (rabbinic Judaism) may see it's history and traditions retrojected back into ancient Israelite History pre-Exile and the emergence of Judaism, but this is nothing more than conservative views claiming an "Always-So" status - in direct opposition to what evidence is available outside of that tradition.
The ancient Israelites were not Rabbinic Jews. I haven't responded to this thread in a bit, because I remember going round and round with Flipflop in other threads about this crucial difference - and it doesn't achieve anything. It's impossible to get anywere because he plainly states that he is wary of academics and scholars, and is not about to change his conservative views to line up with modern knowledge on the subject. That's fine and dandy - it's similar to how Fundamentalist Christians view their own tradition, and then retroject their traditions into the Hebrew Bible (as a typology of Jesus, and nothing more; rabbinic Judaism sees their own tradition as being existent even throughout the time of the ancient Israelites - not a typology of Judaism, but as being Judaism-endowed even before the emergence of Judaism from Mosaic Yahwism).
So perhaps this type of argumentation can be saved for another thread - or opponents of "academia" can qualify their remarks with "from the viewpoint of rabbinic Judaism".
Anyways - back to the point. An understanding of Modern jewish history has absolutely nothing at all to do with Pre-Roman history - how can it? Use that analogy and apply it to other things: one cannot understand Shakespeare without first studying a modern English playwright; one cannot understand Mozart without first understanding modern Austrian composers; one cannot understand the ancient Egyptians without first studying the modern Egyptians; one cannot understand 1st Century Christianity without first studying modern Protestants; the list can go on and on - the basic point is that the argument is lacking, besides showing a certain bias.
Now - after the above, how is it "clear" that - using the example of "modern Jewish history" - the pre-modern Jews were of the same literacy level? That's just silly. It assumes that if something is so today, then it must always have been so for a long time. Again - retrojecting elements back into history, with no evidence. But this is a common rabbinic practice - the rabbis of the 2nd century had certain teachings which they insisted that Moses, himself, had. I've quoted this before, but there is a rabbinic story of how Moses time travels to a then-modern school where the rabbis are claiming that "Moses said this" and "Moses said that" and Moses is sitting there in bewilderment - because he never said anything of the sort. The rabbis were well aware of the practice of retrojecting elements back into history. This may be fine for within a tradition, but it's not appropriate to use it outside of that tradition when the subject is being discussed externally.
So - where is the evidence (outside of assuming an "Always-So" story) that male jews were always highly literate? The opposite evidence tends to show the exact opposite - in point of fact. But I suppose that's not acceptable, since it smacks of "academia" and actual research?
Whoppers, I assume it's terribily frustrating that I (and perhaps other religious Jews) will not engage you in an academic discussion on these items that you've obviously put a tremendous amount of time and effort into learning. Maybe there are some out there who will. But for this Yid, I've spent an equal amount of time and effort learning the same "facts" from a different viewpoint - every bit as academic - but obviously from sources and materials you do not have respect for. I hold the same disdain for the materials and sources from which you've studied. And I disagree with the conclusions you've arrived at, as your sources in my eyes are agenda driven and tainted.
This website is filled primarily with agnostics/athiests and "others" (as seen in another current thread), who I presume nearly all bring certain pre-determined agendas to any discussions we have here. I believe this puts a religious guy like myself behind the 8-ball when having any discussion that delves into sources and history. I believe my value to this website is in disseminating current Jewish culture, belief and custom. I can tell you why we do something. Apparently if i try to give the origen of the "why,' many will disagree. And that's ok with me, as you've seen me say in many other threads - i just don't care. Jews in general don't care what non-Jews think of us or our practices, as long as your beliefs do not incline you to kill us Jews.
That's a bad point. A knowledge of modern jewish history and ideology is not a requirement to understanding ancient Israelite history: the two are not equivalent, whether it concerns the religion under question (rabbinic Judaism vs ancient Israelite Mosaic Yahwism), the people under question (the ancient Israelites vs the later Jews), or the language (the various stages of Biblical Hebrew, it's script vs modern Hebrew, it's Aramaic-"square script). The latter (rabbinic Judaism) may see it's history and traditions retrojected back into ancient Israelite History pre-Exile and the emergence of Judaism, but this is nothing more than conservative views claiming an "Always-So" status - in direct opposition to what evidence is available outside of that tradition. -snip-
TY Whoppers for the rebuttal. This type of defence is no different to the concept christians use in that you need the holy spirit to determine the truthâ„¢ from scripture and what amuses me is that similar arguments are made from both sides.
One has to assume that simple arithmetic or simple logic does not apply to biblical legends/myths and amounts to no more than special pleading or wilful cognitive dissonance. While you bring a lot more academia to the table, I simply challenge these claims as I did in the OP.
We find the same "excuses" when discussing inconsistencies with catholics and they at least will point you to the official apologetics of the RCC which tells you how the texts should be interpreted. At the end of the day, it is merely one or a council of men's opinion as really has no more authority than any rational thinking person's conclusions.
I can pick up a 30 year old text book explaining the basics of electrical theory which I used in my studies and it still holds true, even today. I can read and comprehend the explanations and the tutor is merely there to answer questions and to explain stuff in another manner if necessary but THAT explanation does not negate/contradict the written text, it merely elucidates it.
The biblical texts from what is termed the OT or Jewish bible are archaic and hold no credence in modern civilisation.
Do Jews still hold to the concept that a women's menses is an unclean thing? Are her menstrual cloths (used sanitary towels) still used as a method whereby man's righteousness is compared to? Is her menses still viewed as her "secret fountain" OR do they like most rational people accept that the woman is no longer a mere incubator for the "seed" of man but actually contributes equally to the reproduction process and that modern science actually has disproven this aspect in their archaic texts?
These obvious misnomers prove that the texts were from ancient men that had no clue of reproduction mechanics and I have yet to see any theist admit this was an error. Surely an intelligent god would have no doubt in ITS mind as to how the birds and the bees actually work and would have explained that in even minor detail. The simple observation of nature say with chickens should have given the men who wrote this nonsense a clue that the female had something viable to contribute.
Whoppers, I assume it's terribily frustrating that I (and perhaps other religious Jews) will not engage you in an academic discussion on these items that you've obviously put a tremendous amount of time and effort into learning. Maybe there are some out there who will. But for this Yid, I've spent an equal amount of time and effort learning the same "facts" from a different viewpoint - every bit as academic - but obviously from sources and materials you do not have respect for. I hold the same disdain for the materials and sources from which you've studied. And I disagree with the conclusions you've arrived at, as your sources in my eyes are agenda driven and tainted.
This website is filled primarily with agnostics/athiests and "others" (as seen in another current thread), who I presume nearly all bring certain pre-determined agendas to any discussions we have here. I believe this puts a religious guy like myself behind the 8-ball when having any discussion that delves into sources and history. I believe my value to this website is in disseminating current Jewish culture, belief and custom. I can tell you why we do something. Apparently if i try to give the origen of the "why,' many will disagree. And that's ok with me, as you've seen me say in many other threads - i just don't care. Jews in general don't care what non-Jews think of us or our practices, as long as your beliefs do not incline you to kill us Jews.
Well, it's not frustrating to me to realize that there are orthodox believers clinging to their orthodox beliefs - I have no problem with that. The problem is when these orthodox beliefs are thrown against objective facts. I realize that there is always a degree of bias and subjectivity in virtually everything (especially in historical accounts), but this does not mean that the "relativism" door is now wide open. Since you seem to think that it is only non-Jews who think this way (despite my quotations of entirely Jewish writers in an ealier post), I will quote an orthodox Jewish believer again:
It is certainly not the case that one set of assumptions is just as good as the next. After all, people can sometimes be wrong in what they have assumed, and we are in any case never altogether free to choose our assumptions. But the point of juxtaposing ancient and modern interpretations is not to show that one way of reading is right and the other mistaken, or that one is scientific and the other fanciful. What truly separates these two groups of interpreters is the set of unwritten instructions that guide them in reading the biblical text. Accept the one's, and the other's interpretations appear irrelevant at best, at worst a willful and foolish hiding from the obvious. It it thanks to this crucial difference in assumptions that these two groups can read exactly the same words and perceive two quite different messages.
(James Kugel, How To Read the Bible, p. 136, New York: Free Press, 2007)
So where does this leave us? We have one set of assumptions, for example (that the Torah was given to Moses from God, or YHWH) and another (that the Torah was written by multiple human hands) - and these two assumptions bang against each other. The former assumption makes any attempt to discuss the historicity of the Exodus Account critically (and I don't meant that as "negatively": the goal of "critical" investigations is to not accept former assumptions without critically examining them first) a futile endeavor (for there is no possible way to deny the historicty of the events reported in a Divinely-Given set of books, from the former set of assumptions). The latter set of assumptions, due to its critical approach, is not able to reconcile the seemingly composite authorship of the Torah with the traditional belief that Moses was given it by God - the former set of assumptions is not in evidence when viewed critically, and is actually weakened.
All I ask is that you don't repeat the same arguments that it all stems from non-Jews making false claims; all Jews are as conservative as you; that Rabbinic Judaism is the ONLY legitimate Judaism; that traditional religious belief is just as valid as modern scientific approaches to the world; that academic approaches are for the most part biased and open to question; etc. "Academic" approaches to issues are what enable us to communicate to one another on a computer; what enable me to drive a car; are what enables a scientist to date a piece of pottery to a certain date; are what enables linguists to study languages and their relationships; and on and on. So far as I know, none of these things have been accomplished by traditional religious beliefs or prayer - they are two widely different things, and the comparison just doesn't work. One is obviously more suited to the problem than the other. One "set of assumptions" produces better results, judging from a simple examination of the world around us.
If I (and others) prefer to use these methods to investigate issues that previously were the provenance of religious tradition, and the results seem to run counter to religious tradition - then so be it. I'm sorry. This remorse does not mean that the "academic" results should be discarded, though, to spare the religious beliefs of tradition. Most Jews, as is no surprise, have been willing to accept academic results, apply them to their religious tradition and adapted in order to keep their religion workable. A similar reasoning was why the Oral Torah was begun - to help make sense of the older, written laws of the Torah that were difficult to apply to the changing circumstances of an increasingly more complex world, and the increasinly Diasporic conditions the Jews found themselves living under. There's nothing wrong with this - I am firmly in favor of a religion evolving. But to retroject later interpretations back into the tradition is patently transparant, and only fools those who wish to be fooled.
I have respect for your tradition, but I realize that it's one tradition among many - and every single religious tradition claims it's own priority over others. That's why I said I'm not frustrated or surprised at it. I just have to remind myself to stop getting into these discussions. Perhaps we're both preaching to the choir?
Anyways - enough about conservative religious tradition vs modern approaches (both secular and religious). This discussion belongs in another thread (rather than being invoked every time someone dares to comment on the Torah), and is derailing the thread away from the initial question - and I apologize for that, Seeker, for I am just as guilty.
TY Whoppers for the rebuttal. This type of defence is no different to the concept christians use in that you need the holy spirit to determine the truthâ„¢ from scripture and what amuses me is that similar arguments are made from both sides.
One has to assume that simple arithmetic or simple logic does not apply to biblical legends/myths and amounts to no more than special pleading or wilful cognitive dissonance. While you bring a lot more academia to the table, I simply challenge these claims as I did in the OP.
We find the same "excuses" when discussing inconsistencies with catholics and they at least will point you to the official apologetics of the RCC which tells you how the texts should be interpreted. At the end of the day, it is merely one or a council of men's opinion as really has no more authority than any rational thinking person's conclusions.
I can pick up a 30 year old text book explaining the basics of electrical theory which I used in my studies and it still holds true, even today. I can read and comprehend the explanations and the tutor is merely there to answer questions and to explain stuff in another manner if necessary but THAT explanation does not negate/contradict the written text, it merely elucidates it.
The biblical texts from what is termed the OT or Jewish bible are archaic and hold no credence in modern civilisation.
Do Jews still hold to the concept that a women's menses is an unclean thing? Are her menstrual cloths (used sanitary towels) still used as a method whereby man's righteousness is compared to? Is her menses still viewed as her "secret fountain" OR do they like most rational people accept that the woman is no longer a mere incubator for the "seed" of man but actually contributes equally to the reproduction process and that modern science actually has disproven this aspect in their archaic texts?
These obvious misnomers prove that the texts were from ancient men that had no clue of reproduction mechanics and I have yet to see any theist admit this was an error. Surely an intelligent god would have no doubt in ITS mind as to how the birds and the bees actually work and would have explained that in even minor detail. The simple observation of nature say with chickens should have given the men who wrote this nonsense a clue that the female had something viable to contribute.
Yes, indeed! You summed it up nicely.
It is equivalent to engaging in an argument with any conservative, orthodox set of beliefs that rejects modernism as a threat to their tradition. What many do not realize is that they then ostracize themselves from any modern theological discussions. While the rest of Christianity or Judaism moves on, the older, dogma-bound groups remain in the past and their views are soon seen as quaint and antique.
Some of the best scholarship on the ancient Near East is being done by Jewish scholars working in the field today. I could start naming plenty of reputable names, but those are easily available from other sources.
The mainstream view currently is that the Exodus account is highly unlikely to have occurred in the numbers that can be inferred from the biblical account, that any "exodus" would have been done by a very small group of Hebrews and not the entire nation, and this is because all archaeological evidence points to an Israelite presence in Canaan long before the biblical account records it. Hebrew is a Canaanite language itself, as if that is not enough to show a certain relationship. At some point, the Israelites and Mosaic Yahwism made a concerted effort to separate themselves from their kin, and labeled them as Canaanites. This is the current Mainstream view, and it's very well supported. It, of course, clashes with traditional belief - but traditional belief has been unable to assail it successfully.
That's a bad point. A knowledge of modern jewish history and ideology is not a requirement to understanding ancient Israelite history: the two are not equivalent, whether it concerns the religion under question (rabbinic Judaism vs ancient Israelite Mosaic Yahwism), the people under question (the ancient Israelites vs the later Jews), or the language (the various stages of Biblical Hebrew, it's script vs modern Hebrew, it's Aramaic-"square script). The latter (rabbinic Judaism) may see it's history and traditions retrojected back into ancient Israelite History pre-Exile and the emergence of Judaism, but this is nothing more than conservative views claiming an "Always-So" status - in direct opposition to what evidence is available outside of that tradition.
The ancient Israelites were not Rabbinic Jews. I haven't responded to this thread in a bit, because I remember going round and round with Flipflop in other threads about this crucial difference - and it doesn't achieve anything. It's impossible to get anywere because he plainly states that he is wary of academics and scholars, and is not about to change his conservative views to line up with modern knowledge on the subject. That's fine and dandy - it's similar to how Fundamentalist Christians view their own tradition, and then retroject their traditions into the Hebrew Bible (as a typology of Jesus, and nothing more; rabbinic Judaism sees their own tradition as being existent even throughout the time of the ancient Israelites - not a typology of Judaism, but as being Judaism-endowed even before the emergence of Judaism from Mosaic Yahwism).
So perhaps this type of argumentation can be saved for another thread - or opponents of "academia" can qualify their remarks with "from the viewpoint of rabbinic Judaism".
Anyways - back to the point. An understanding of Modern jewish history has absolutely nothing at all to do with Pre-Roman history - how can it? Use that analogy and apply it to other things: one cannot understand Shakespeare without first studying a modern English playwright; one cannot understand Mozart without first understanding modern Austrian composers; one cannot understand the ancient Egyptians without first studying the modern Egyptians; one cannot understand 1st Century Christianity without first studying modern Protestants; the list can go on and on - the basic point is that the argument is lacking, besides showing a certain bias.
Now - after the above, how is it "clear" that - using the example of "modern Jewish history" - the pre-modern Jews were of the same literacy level? That's just silly. It assumes that if something is so today, then it must always have been so for a long time. Again - retrojecting elements back into history, with no evidence. But this is a common rabbinic practice - the rabbis of the 2nd century had certain teachings which they insisted that Moses, himself, had. I've quoted this before, but there is a rabbinic story of how Moses time travels to a then-modern school where the rabbis are claiming that "Moses said this" and "Moses said that" and Moses is sitting there in bewilderment - because he never said anything of the sort. The rabbis were well aware of the practice of retrojecting elements back into history. This may be fine for within a tradition, but it's not appropriate to use it outside of that tradition when the subject is being discussed externally.
So - where is the evidence (outside of assuming an "Always-So" story) that male jews were always highly literate? The opposite evidence tends to show the exact opposite - in point of fact. But I suppose that's not acceptable, since it smacks of "academia" and actual research?
If you know nothing about even Roman jewish history Baitar or Alexandria (you obviously know nothing about Jewish life which certain attributes are true for as long as there is historical records) you are a ignoramus posing as a a scholar there is zero evidence that majority of jews were ever illiterate and plenty of evidence even in Roman Times that they were. The fact the you didn't know that shows you know nothing.
In regards to assuming the past is like the present a logical assumption (which is going to be a problem for you ) would be that if we have evidence of something for more then 2000 years and we have zero (non biblical) evidence before that point and none to the contrary then it would be logical to assume that it doesn't pre date the last point we have proof for. (there are almost no real records from before the greek era in any civilization)
The Children of Israel who went with Moses in their Exodus numbered 600 thousand men other than the children.
400 years before, they came to Egypt in the time of Joseph and they numbered 60 men.
It might be less than that!?
They might be 60 thousands!?
God is the All-Knowing; in the Quran they numbered and counted as "thousands"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
