Joshua's long day

[rogue06]

Firstly your contention is premised solely on literary sources. You conveniently ignore all the other historical evidence.

Sparko has more than adequately dealt with your double standards.

We know from references or quotes made in later works that numerous ancient texts existed but these texts have not survived [for various reasons] in their original form. We also owe a debt of thanks to the Muslim world that preserved many ancient texts that were [until much later] hardly known to the western world. We also have palimpsests that re-used ancient parchments.

Let's not forget the Irish monks whopreserved the very record of Western civilization -- copying manuscripts of Greek and Latin writers, both pagan and Christian, while libraries and most learning on the continent were lost as various hordes repeatedly crisscrossed the continent.

And the same thing can be said about numerous Christian works. Not just heterodox or heretical writings but also important works by Apostolic Fathers and numerous ECFs. If it weren't for Eusebius we wouldn't even know many of them even existed.

For instance all we have from Polycarp is his Epistle to the Philippians though he is thought to have written much more.

To name just a single work that has been completely lost, Quadratus of Athens' Apology presented to Hadrian when he was attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries (c.120-130 A.D.). Eusebius mentions it and quotes a single sentence whereas Jerome provides some biographical details in his Illustrious Men. But that's it.

And there are many more like that. Works and authors cited by later writers who still had access to these works but are now lost to us.

I'll add that losing literary works to history isn't something that only happened long ago. Works such as Melville's The Isle of the Cross and Hardy's first novel, The Poor Man and the Lady are both lost.

Furthermore, that we have so many copies of Christian texts is because those texts were deemed to be important after the fourth century and were copied and copied and copied. Unlike so many of those ancient non-Christian texts.

Incorrect.

First, many pagan writers were still deemed important and frequently copied, Aristotle not being the least among them. And yet we have maybe but a third of the works he penned.

Second, you are ignoring that for centuries many of the now lost works were being copied and passed around. I daresay that works by a Roman Emperor, for example, were being continuously copied and distributed. And the Roman Empire was far richer and had far more resources available to them than various monasteries scattered over the continent ever did. The latter would have to carefully budget for paper (more likely vellum) and ink -- both of which were rather expensive. That wouldn't have been an issue for the Roman Empire.

And yet, many if not most of these copied and recopied works are now lost. So that really doesn't wash as an explanation.

As for the remarks concerning Tiberius we have a multiplicity of other evidence for his life apart from the extant literary sources.

One would hope so given that he was the freaking emperor of a massive empire. But nevertheless, when it comes to the written record, Jesus is far more attested to than he is.

And don't think I haven't noticed how you simply ignore the fact that historians regard even a fraction of this much attestation as being conclusive. As Habermas' quote from Maier demonstrates:

"Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable."

And Chandler verifies with his observation that

"Major contours of history hang on much thinner wires than the events of the New Testament and nobody doubts them!"

And yet all you do is say it isn't enough and we need more. In fact, that is all you did in your supposed "answer" to my question, "what sort of contemporary documentation should we expect to find?" All you did was repeat your demand for more, More, MORE without bothering to answer the question.

We have nothing for the actual man, Jesus, or his disciples outside of Christian literary texts, and a brief aside to the brother of James by Josephus. Nor do we have any contemporary supportive independent evidence for many of the narrative details contained in the four canonical gospels or Acts.

The comparison of Tiberius and Jesus by Habermas and Licona sure puts the lie to that porker. Both Jesus and Tiberius are mentioned by the same number of secular non-Christian sources, namely nine.

Now maybe you thought that was nein, a homonym of nine, but the last time I checked its a number that's a good deal more than the one that you'll allow.

Furthermore, these Christian texts as they have come down to us, have been extensively reworked. We cannot know precisely what was contained in the original MSS of either Acts or the four canonical gospels because we have no original documents.

The earliest copies are far closer to the originals than many if not most secular works we have are.

manuscript-comparison.jpg

But once again you are happily willing to dump the entire discipline of history in the dumpster to keep your narrative going. IOW, for you, pretty much all of history is lost in the fog and that field of "history" is nothing but a joke.

Congratulations.

[rogue06]

[...]

The lack might be meaningful if there was a reasonable amount of documentary evidence for other events from the period. There isn't.

And that's the point she keeps running from.

We have a severe dearth of works from antiquity but she and others of her ilk will still insist it isn't enough in spite of what we do have being much more than we have for anything else from that time.

It's just more hypocrisy.

[Markus River]

Well that nails it for your being a Dawkins-style New Atheist.

Jeeez, how many times must we go throught this? Of course I'm a Dawkins-style New Atheist. It's an observation you've recently made yourself, and I've never denied it. What's funny is that you seem to think that it's some kind of insult. It isn't.

Like him you can only shoehorn all Christians into a single category that you think you can handle.

Not at all. On current evidence, I certainly would not classify you as a YEC. Nor, with one "notable" exception, anyone else on this thread.

That's why so many old-school, traditional atheists were critical of his The God Delusion.

A bunch of jealous old farts who were furious that they hadn't written the book themselves, and of course, made all that money.

Far more critical were the old-school theists who were used to debating nit-picking points of Greek and Hebrew translations, who suddenly found themselves facing crude but effective demands for falsifiable evidence for their claims for the existence of god.

Amateur hour at its worst.

I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it got me interested in all this.

[Markus River]

Well he did quote Chris Hitchens.

And proudly so. His axiom on the burden of proof being solely on the one asserting the claim has crippled theistic apolgists the world over. Your own pathetic attempts to reframe your assertive arguments into something that I should provide evidence to rebutt being a case in point.

And just in case anyone missed it;

That which is asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence

We need to get Markus over into the Tektonics forum, JP needs a new chewtoy for Rocket.

I've swum in the tectonics sewer once. That's quite enough turds for one lifetime.

[Sparko]

Furthermore, these Christian texts as they have come down to us, have been extensively reworked. We cannot know precisely what was contained in the original MSS of either Acts or the four canonical gospels because we have no original documents.

Wrong. You know nothing of Textual Criticism. We know with a very high degree of accuracy what was in the original manuscripts.

[Sparko]

And proudly so. His axiom on the burden of proof being solely on the one asserting the claim has crippled theistic apolgists the world over. Your own pathetic attempts to reframe your assertive arguments into something that I should provide evidence to rebutt being a case in point.

And just in case anyone missed it;

That which is asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence

Well, der. I guess I can safely dismiss that statement along with everything you have said in this thread. Good to know.

I've swum in the tectonics sewer once. That's quite enough turds for one lifetime.

Yeah I went and checked it out. You pretty much were a turd and got flushed.

I can see why you avoid that forum now.

[rogue06]

Jeeez, how many times must we go throught this? Of course I'm a Dawkins-style New Atheist. It's an observation you've recently made yourself, and I've never denied it. What's funny is that you seem to think that it's some kind of insult. It isn't.

Nor confirm it IIRC.

It's always amusing when someone doesn't have the wherewithal to realize when they're being insulted. Dawkins is a step (and not a big one) above kindergarten-level atheism. At its best he pains with such broad brushes that he's barely useful. That's why atheists who are a bit more studied in it say his arguments make them cringe.

So your not even realizing that you have your nose up the bum of someone serious atheists consider a joke is funny is not on me.

A bunch of jealous old farts who were furious that they hadn't written the book themselves, and of course, made all that money.

Goodness, they must all be ancient if they're all old farts compared to an octogenarian.

Actually, outside of Thomas Nagel, in the short list of atheist critics I gave you they are all younger than Dawkins with most by a couple or more decades. So it is becoming increasingly clear you are a man of one book -- Dawkins' -- and have no idea about anyone else.

And all that aside, you might have a point if they were constantly denouncing other atheists books and statements. Jealous if any of them are successful.

Far more critical were the old-school theists who were used to debating nit-picking points of Greek and Hebrew translations, who suddenly found themselves facing crude but effective demands for falsifiable evidence for their claims for the existence of god.

And its just a coincidence that many of those critics are philosophers (including philosophers of science), who have what you could call a knack for spotting weak arguments and saying that they "cringe" when hearing those made by Dawkins.

Oh yeah. Jealousy.

That must be it.

I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it got me interested in all this.

And never "evolved" past it.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to push you out of Dawkins' nursery. Far from it. You are far more entertaining this way.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sparko has more than adequately dealt with your double standards.

On the contrary, Sparko has yet to provide any attested historical evidence for this biblical character of Joshua and any evidence for the supposed battles this figure fought.

Given the comment Sparko made to me, he appears to consider that Roman history from Julius Caesar [and thus the history of your own religion] is all legend.

Incorrect.

First, many pagan writers were still deemed important and frequently copied, Aristotle not being the least among them. And yet we have maybe but a third of the works he penned.

Not to the extent of Christian texts.

Second, you are ignoring that for centuries many of the now lost works were being copied and passed around.

I am not ignoring anything I made it quite clear in my earlier reply that many ancient texts have been lost for a variety of reasons.

And the same thing can be said about numerous Christian works. Not just heterodox or heretical writings

Often destroyed, along with the works of non Christians, by Christians. to name but two the writings of the non Christian Porphyry and the Christian subordinationist Arius were both consigned to the flames by Christians.

I daresay that works by a Roman Emperor, for example, were being continuously copied and distributed. And the Roman Empire was far richer and had far more resources available to them than various monasteries scattered over the continent ever did. The latter would have to carefully budget for paper (more likely vellum) and ink -- both of which were rather expensive.

You do not appear to know a great deal about the remarkable speed by which the Christian church acquired temporal power and wealth. Free of taxation and with large donations from the Imperial fiscus many churches and churchmen became very rich very quickly

That wouldn't have been an issue for the Roman Empire.

It would not have been an issue for certain classes in the Empire. However, I very much doubt that the average working class plebeian had his own personal library.

The latter would have to carefully budget for paper (more likely vellum) and ink -- both of which were rather expensive.And yet, many if not most of these copied and recopied works are now lost. So that really doesn't wash as an explanation.

It does if you include warfare, accidental fire, and of course deliberate destruction.

One would hope so given that he was the freaking emperor of a massive empire. But nevertheless, when it comes to the written record, .

And that completely destroys your argument concerning evidence for Tiberius. We have a great deal more sources for him than we do for Jesus of Nazareth [excepting Christian writers of course].

Jesus is far more attested to than he is

Do please provide the list of ancient non Christian writers that make reference to an actual man called Jesus.

And don't think I haven't noticed how you simply ignore the fact that historians regard even a fraction of this much attestation as being conclusive. As Habermas' quote from Maier demonstrates:

"Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable."

And Chandler verifies with his observation that

"Major contours of history hang on much thinner wires than the events of the New Testament and nobody doubts them!"

Many of those literary sources can be corroborated from other evidence. Your Christian texts cannot.

That is the simple fact which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

And yet all you do is say it isn't enough and we need more. In fact, that is all you did in your supposed "answer" to my question, "what sort of contemporary documentation should we expect to find?" All you did was repeat your demand for more, More, MORE without bothering to answer the question.

I answered your question. The most likely reason is that the activities of a Galilean Jewish peasant wonder-worker and his followers in a lesser province was of absolutely no interest to the surrounding literate society.

Hence Justus of Tiberias' silence and he lived in Galilee.

The earliest copies are far closer to the originals than many if not most secular works we have are.

You cannot make such a definitive statement without recourse to the original MSS and those we do not have.

You might try reading The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman and also Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.

[tabibito]

https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/J...-tiberias.html
The conduct of Josephus towards Justus became still more unjustly severe after the latter had ventured to write a history of the war, now unhappily lost, ... Justus, according to Photius (Bibl. cod. 33), also wrote a history of the Jews from the times of Moses down to the death of Herod, in the third year of the reign of Trajan, but this work also is unfortunately lost. Some writers (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 3, 9; Stephanus Byzant. s.v. Τιβερίας) speak of a special work of his on the Jewish War, but this may refer only to the last portion of his chronicle which Diogenes Laertius (2, 41) calls a Στίμμα. Suidas (s.v. Ιοῦστος) mentions some other works of Justus, of which, however, nothing is extant.

H_A seems somehow to know the content of a number of lost books.

[Sparko]

On the contrary, Sparko has yet to provide any attested historical evidence for this biblical character of Joshua and any evidence for the supposed battles this figure fought.

I told you there is archeological evidence of such. A simple google search will confirm that for you. Are you that incompetent or just that lazy?

Do you expect me to précis them for you? Heaven helps those who help themselves. If you won't help yourself no one else can.

Given the comment Sparko made to me, he appears to consider that Roman history from Julius Caesar [and thus the history of your own religion] is all legend.

Wow, if you truly believe that, then you really are as clueless as you act. Maybe you aren't a troll after all and really are an idiot. I even explained exactly what I was doing with my argument to you regarding Caesar. Also, you provided no evidence of Julius Caesar yourself. You merely mentioned that such evidence exists, and yet above you chided me for doing the same with Joshua. Another double standard on your part.

[Christianbookworm]

I told you there is archeological evidence of such. A simple google search will confirm that for you. Are you that incompetent or just that lazy?

Do you expect me to précis them for you? Heaven helps those who help themselves. If you won't help yourself no one else can.



Wow, if you truly believe that, then you really are as clueless as you act. Maybe you aren't a troll after all and really are an idiot. I even explained exactly what I was doing with my argument to you regarding Caesar. Also, you provided no evidence of Julius Caesar yourself. You merely mentioned that such evidence exists, and yet above you chided me for doing the same with Joshua. Another double standard on your part.

She does seem to think fancy talk makes one look intelligentwhen it really just makes one look pretentious. Clearly learned English at school. Native English speakers don't always write so fancy. That's for research papers and professional works.

[Sparko]

She does seem to think fancy talk makes one look intelligentwhen it really just makes one look pretentious. Clearly learned English at school. Native English speakers don't always write so fancy. That's for research papers and professional works.

She's a snob who wants to act like she is better than everyone else, but her true self shines through. Fancy words don't mean "smart" - just arrogant.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/J...-tiberias.html
The conduct of Josephus towards Justus became still more unjustly severe after the latter had ventured to write a history of the war, now unhappily lost, ... Justus, according to Photius (Bibl. cod. 33), also wrote a history of the Jews from the times of Moses down to the death of Herod, in the third year of the reign of Trajan, but this work also is unfortunately lost. Some writers (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 3, 9; Stephanus Byzant. s.v. Τιβερίας) speak of a special work of his on the Jewish War, but this may refer only to the last portion of his chronicle which Diogenes Laertius (2, 41) calls a Στίμμα. Suidas (s.v. Ιοῦστος) mentions some other works of Justus, of which, however, nothing is extant.

H_A seems somehow to know the content of a number of lost books.

The Patriarch of Constantinople , Photius I [c.810-895 CE] read Justus' Chronicle and recorded a summary of the contents in his still extant Bibliotheca, . In that he states that "suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged he [Justus] does not mention the coming of the Christ, the events of his life, nor the miracles performed by him". [Photius’ Bibliotheca is referenced in J.H. Freese, Library of Photius, Vol 7. MacMillan 1920.]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I told you there is archeological evidence of such.

There is archaeological evidence for both Hazor and Jericho but the chronology does not fit with the supposed arrival of the Israelites in Canaan..

The almost four hundred Amarna tablets, include letters sent to Egypt by rulers of powerful states, such as the Hittites of Anatolia and the rulers of Babylonia. But most were sent from rulers of city-states in Canaan, who were-vassals of Egypt during this period. The senders included the rulers of Canaanite cities that would later become famous in the Bible, such as Jerusalem, Shechem, Megiddo, Hazor, and Lachish. Most important, the Amarna letters reveal that Canaan was an Egyptian province, closely controlled by Egyptian administration. The provincial capital was located in Gaza, but Egyptian garrisons were stationed at key sites throughout the country, like Beth-shean south of the Sea of Galilee and at the port of Jaffa [today part of Tel Aviv].

In the Bible, no Egyptians are reported outside the borders of Egypt and none are mentioned in any of the battles within Canaan. Yet contemporary texts and archaeological finds indicate that they managed and carefully watched over the affairs of the country. The princes of the Canaanite cities [described in the book of Joshua as powerful enemies] were, in point fact weak with poorly fortified settlements. Excavations have shown that the cities of Canaan in this period were not the regular cities of the kind we find in later history. These were mainly administrative strongholds for the elite, wherein resided the king. his family, and his small -entourage of bureaucrats. The peasants lived scattered throughout the surrounding countryside in small villages.

The typical such city had only a palace, a temple compound, and a few other public edifices-probably the residences of high officials and other administrative buildings. But there were no city walls. Those formidable Canaanite cities described in the conquest narrative were not protected by fortifications.

[Sparko]

There is archaeological evidence for both Hazor and Jericho but the chronology does not fit with the supposed arrival of the Israelites in Canaan..

The almost four hundred Amarna tablets, include letters sent to Egypt by rulers of powerful states, such as the Hittites of Anatolia and the rulers of Babylonia. But most were sent from rulers of city-states in Canaan, who were-vassals of Egypt during this period. The senders included the rulers of Canaanite cities that would later become famous in the Bible, such as Jerusalem, Shechem, Megiddo, Hazor, and Lachish. Most important, the Amarna letters reveal that Canaan was an Egyptian province, closely controlled by Egyptian administration. The provincial capital was located in Gaza, but Egyptian garrisons were stationed at key sites throughout the country, like Beth-shean south of the Sea of Galilee and at the port of Jaffa [today part of Tel Aviv].

In the Bible, no Egyptians are reported outside the borders of Egypt and none are mentioned in any of the battles within Canaan. Yet contemporary texts and archaeological finds indicate that they managed and carefully watched over the affairs of the country. The princes of the Canaanite cities [described in the book of Joshua as powerful enemies] were, in point fact weak with poorly fortified settlements. Excavations have shown that the cities of Canaan in this period were not the regular cities of the kind we find in later history. These were mainly administrative strongholds for the elite, wherein resided the king. his family, and his small -entourage of bureaucrats. The peasants lived scattered throughout the surrounding countryside in small villages.

The typical such city had only a palace, a temple compound, and a few other public edifices-probably the residences of high officials and other administrative buildings. But there were no city walls. Those formidable Canaanite cities described in the conquest narrative were not protected by fortifications.

See? Exactly as I said. No matter what evidence you are provided, you will find a way to handwave it away. I also see you gave no cites or accredited sources and no corroborative contemporary extraneous evidence. And archeologists have found walls around Jericho and of their collapse and of the city being burned after the collapse. As far as dating goes, dating of archeological sites is not cut and dried and is as much an art as science. The rest of your post is pretty much just a distraction and you didn't even bother to mention the altar I told you about.

Regarding the age of the wall at Jericho chronology being off:

“Evidence of a Late Bronze Age town was also found but Kenyon could not find even a trace of a Late Bronze Age wall. How could the walls of Jericho come tumbling down during the Late Bronze Age if there was no Late Bronze Age wall around the town. There may be an explanation. In many cases the Late Bronze Age people did not actually build new fortifications but, rather, reused Middle Bronze fortifications, strengthening them where necessary. Interpreters often overlook this fact, and it may have an important bearing on the case of Jericho. It may well be that the Late Bronze Age settlement at Jericho reused the city wall from the Middle Bronze Age.
Yadin, Yigael. 1982. “Israel Comes to Canaan: Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?” Biblical Archaeology Review 08:02 (1982): 22.

“Since at Jericho no city wall was built at any time in the Late Bronze Age, but finds there demonstrate habitation through Late Bronze I, based on the evidence from other sites it is extremely likely that the Middle Bronze Age III wall at Jericho was also reused until the end of Late Bronze I, when the city was destroyed and abandoned.
Titus Michael Kennedy, “History or Myth? An Archaeological Evaluation of the Israelite Conquest during the periods of Joshua and the Judges,” p. 88.
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2...es-at-jericho/