ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.

[gnostic]

We don't need to "refute" but draw an intelligent assessment
that ALL THE CIVILIZATIONS in the Bronze Age could write.
And the Jews were at least as smart as anyone else. In King
David's day they had what is termed Paleo-Hebrew, and
before that they used a Canaanite form of Proto-Sinaitic.

Israel simply never made monuments to her greatness like
Babylon and Egypt. And Israel's history wasn't in obelisks
and Mesha Stele style monuments - it was in the bible
itself. This is where the circular argument comes from
concerning "proving" Israel's claims.

The only evidence that we have of Israel existing in the Bronze Age, or at least in the 2nd millennium BCE, is from Egyptian stele, in which the 19th dynasty Merneptah (reign 1213 - 1203 BCE) celebrated his victories over the Canaan and the transliteration of hieroglyphs I.si.ri.ar, which may or may not mean “Israel”. The Merneptah Stele speak of no names of any leaders, like Joshua or any of the Judges.

Other than this, we know of no other texts in the 2nd millennium BCE that would relate to “Israel” being the Hebrew-speaking people.

As I stated in my last reply, the earliest texts written in paleo-Hebrew (ancient Hebrew) are those 10th century BCE evidences, namely the Zayit Stone and the Gezer Calendar. And nothing in these inscriptions quote any passage from the scriptures, nor mentioned anyone by the names of Moses, Joshua, Saul, David or Solomon.

 

[PruePhillip]

The only evidence that we have of Israel existing in the Bronze Age, or at least in the 2nd millennium BCE, is from Egyptian stele, in which the 19th dynasty Merneptah (reign 1213 - 1203 BCE) celebrated his victories over the Canaan and the transliteration of hieroglyphs I.si.ri.ar, which may or may not mean “Israel”. The Merneptah Stele speak of no names of any leaders, like Joshua or any of the Judges.

Other than this, we know of no other texts in the 2nd millennium BCE that would relate to “Israel” being the Hebrew-speaking people.

As I stated in my last reply, the earliest texts written in paleo-Hebrew (ancient Hebrew) are those 10th century BCE evidences, namely the Zayit Stone and the Gezer Calendar. And nothing in these inscriptions quote any passage from the scriptures, nor mentioned anyone by the names of Moses, Joshua, Saul, David or Solomon.

It's all interesting and I hope we both learn from it. Been reading about the
Mesha Stele. One "minimalist" claimed this Moabite text from ca 800BC
was an allegory, "Rather than an historical text, the Mesha inscription belongs
to a substantial literary tradition of stories about kings of the past... The phrase
"Omri, king of Israel" ....belongs to a theological world of Narnia."
Mesha Stele - Wikipedia

A "minimalist" won't even concede there was an Israeli king called Omri.
Yet the dynasty of Omri ought to be of no contention to anyone - certainly
SOMEONE ruled over Israel at that time, and Omri didn't seem to have
interest in religion or belief in miracles.
I suppose you are a minimalist and I am a maximalist.

 

[PruePhillip]

The only evidence that we have of Israel existing in the Bronze Age, or at least in the 2nd millennium BCE, is from Egyptian stele, in which the 19th dynasty Merneptah (reign 1213 - 1203 BCE) celebrated his victories over the Canaan and the transliteration of hieroglyphs I.si.ri.ar, which may or may not mean “Israel”. The Merneptah Stele speak of no names of any leaders, like Joshua or any of the Judges.

Other than this, we know of no other texts in the 2nd millennium BCE that would relate to “Israel” being the Hebrew-speaking people.

As I stated in my last reply, the earliest texts written in paleo-Hebrew (ancient Hebrew) are those 10th century BCE evidences, namely the Zayit Stone and the Gezer Calendar. And nothing in these inscriptions quote any passage from the scriptures, nor mentioned anyone by the names of Moses, Joshua, Saul, David or Solomon.

Lack of evidence means that we don't know.
It doesn't mean that we do know.

Recall - some 'scholars' say there was no King David, a united Israel,
12 tribes or any writing in the 10th Century BC. Now their argument
has shifted.

What's that aphorism? "Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence."
To be honest you would have to look at every Semitic group and
even civilization and assess whether Egypt recognizes them in
its inscriptions.

 

[gnostic]

It's all interesting and I hope we both learn from it. Been reading about the
Mesha Stele. One "minimalist" claimed this Moabite text from ca 800BC
was an allegory, "Rather than an historical text, the Mesha inscription belongs
to a substantial literary tradition of stories about kings of the past... The phrase
"Omri, king of Israel" ....belongs to a theological world of Narnia."
Mesha Stele - Wikipedia

A "minimalist" won't even concede there was an Israeli king called Omri.
Yet the dynasty of Omri ought to be of no contention to anyone - certainly
SOMEONE ruled over Israel at that time, and Omri didn't seem to have
interest in religion or belief in miracles.
I suppose you are a minimalist and I am a maximalist.

I have never deny that there are some historicity in the Old Testament, particularly that of 1 & 2 Kings, but there are no historicity to that of Saul, David and Solomon being kings, when there are no independent and contemporary records of their reigns outside of the Bible.

The Mesha Stele is one such example, where we do have outside source to compare it against the biblical narrative.

Where it state the “House of David” is of different matter, because as I said earlier, there are no contemporary evidences to support David himself.

I have read many ancient texts, translated of course, where I have seen and read genealogies that mixed historical names with mythological names.

For instance, there are no doubts that Alexander the Great is a historical figure, although some of histories and biographies may come with some exaggerations or distortions.

But one of those exaggeration is that genealogy of Alexander, is that he was a descendant of Achilles, through Achilles’ son Pyrrhus or Neoptolemus, both of whom fought in the Trojan War. Not only that, it would mean Peleus was also Alexander’s ancestor, the same Peleus who sailed with Jason and the other Argonauts, and had married the sea goddess Thetis, and that Peleus was a grandson of Zeus himself.

Another example would be Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavian, who was the first emperor of the Roman Empire, Augustus. Both claimed Aeneas, a Trojan warrior, whom after the Trojan War, sailed to Italy, and settled in Latium, before the foundation of Rome. And Aeneas was supposedly the son of Anchises and the love goddess Venus (Aphrodite).

The two Caesars weren’t the only one to connect their lineages to the Trojan Aeneas, but also in both the medieval rulers of Ireland and of Wales.

And do you know how many people have claimed their ancestors were King Arthur or Lancelot?

I have always found historical genealogy to be, while fascinating, also to be unreliable.

So unless you have independent sources that are contemporary to David’s supposed reign, I will still see David to be a mythological character.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lack of evidence means that we don't know.
It doesn't mean that we do know.

Recall - some 'scholars' say there was no King David, a united Israel,
12 tribes or any writing in the 10th Century BC. Now their argument
has shifted.

What's that aphorism? "Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence."
To be honest you would have to look at every Semitic group and
even civilization and assess whether Egypt recognizes them in
its inscriptions.

That aphorism is not quite correct. In the case of events that should leave evidence a lack of evidence is evidence of absence. If you hear of a bomb that exploded downtown and cannot find any broken glass, police or fireman driving to or from a site at high speed, no wounded, no sign of any explosion that would be evidence of the lack of such an event.

Now ask yourself, why do we find older writing of other civilizations but none from early Hebrews that supposedly existed? Shouldn't that evidence exist as well? Its lack is evidence of absence since we can readily find such writings form other civilizations.

 

[gnostic]

Lack of evidence means that we don't know.
It doesn't mean that we do know.

Recall - some 'scholars' say there was no King David, a united Israel,
12 tribes or any writing in the 10th Century BC. Now their argument
has shifted.

What's that aphorism? "Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence."

That’s a weak argument, PruePhillip.

You can say absence of evidences is “I don’t know”, but logically and technically, the absence of evidences is the same as there been no evidences.

Absence of evidences should never be treated as true, which is what you are doing now. You’re equipping, making excuses, because you are allowing your bias to dictate what isn’t true as if it was true.

You are not being honest with me, nor to yourself.

 

[PruePhillip]

That’s a weak argument, PruePhillip.

You can say absence of evidences is “I don’t know”, but logically and technically, the absence of evidences is the same as there been no evidences.

Now ask yourself, why do we find older writing of other civilizations but none from early Hebrews that supposedly existed? Shouldn't that evidence exist as well? Its lack is evidence of absence since we can readily find such writings form other civilizations.

We have no evidence the Portuguese circumnavigated my country Australia
in the 1600's. In my home town they have been searching for the famous "Mahogany
ship" of supposed Portuguese origin.
If I say "There's no evidence of the Portuguese...." some would think they weren't here.
It's not the same thing. They certainly COULD have been here. Texts were lost in the
great Lisbon fire. Sound plausible?
If I have "no evidence" of early Bronze Age Hebrew texts it doesn't mean there was no
text back then, it means we haven't found any. And given the Hebrews weren't into steles,
monuments or ornamental graves we have a plausible reason for the lack of early Bronze
Age texts.
But we have evidence of Hebrew texts from the 10th Century - something which minimalists
denied for a long time. We keep pushing back the dates, like lots of the sciences.

I am sure we will continue to find Hebrew texts right back to the days of Ramses. Given time.

 

[gnostic]

If I have "no evidence" of early Bronze Age Hebrew texts it doesn't mean there was no
text back then, it means we haven't found any. And given the Hebrews weren't into steles,
monuments or ornamental graves we have a plausible reason for the lack of early Bronze Age texts.

Again, you are just making up excuses. That’s what apologists do, make up excuses.

From mid-7th century BCE (like Josiah’s reign) to not long after the Second Temple was constructed (about mid-5th century BCE), the Jews underwent burst of literary writing regarding to their scriptures. Unfortunately, not much it survived.

But literary continued during the Hellenistic period, on two fronts:

1. Greek translation, with the Septuagint, from 3rd to 1st centuries BCE.
2. And the scrolls that were hidden in the caves at Qumran, namely the Dead Sea Scrolls, from 3rd century BCE to 2nd century CE.

Another group, began in 1st century CE, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, where the Rabbinical Jews began trying to save all their works, which included scriptures, Tanakh (see Masoretic Text), and the Oral Torah, in Rabbinical literature, like the Talmud (Mishnah and Gemara), Midrash, etc, which took centuries to complete.

So, here have evidences of Jews’ works with scriptures as well as with exegesis literature, from Iron Age to Medieval period.

But there are no such evidences existed in the Bronze Age, where we have 2nd millennium BCE writings of Moses, the supposed author of the Torah (or what the Christian called the Pentateuch).

Or you are doing is believing in the traditions that “Moses” wrote the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, but no evidences such writings existed. You are projecting your belief, nothing more, nothing less.

But we have evidence of Hebrew texts from the 10th Century - something which minimalists
denied for a long time. We keep pushing back the dates, like lots of the sciences.

Oh for crying out loud, PruePhillip! Haven’t you been attention to my replies?

I was the one who kept bringing up some 10th century BCE texts.

I had brought up Zayit Stone and Gezer Calendar, which have been dated to the 10th century BCE, several times, in my past posts.

And the 10th century BCE, is early Iron Age, not Bronze Age, PruePhillip. And the inscriptions on both stone artefacts have nothing to do with the scriptures.

Both David and Solomon, supposedly ruled in this century, before the kingdom was supposedly divided in two. But neither of these objects, has either father’s or son’s name, nor does it quote anything that David and Solomon were supposedly authors of (eg Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs).

Works were ascribed to David and Solomon, but the reality is that they weren’t the real authors.

I was the one who kept bringing up the 10th century writings, so I am not the ones denying their existence.

I am sure we will continue to find Hebrew texts right back to the days of Ramses. Given time.

Now, you are basing your belief on wishes.

 

[ecco]

Can you present any writings of prominent atheists who said ancient Jews are dumb? Or is that just something that you wrote to make a feel-good general criticism of atheists?

If you did understand, why could you not present any writings of prominent atheists who said ancient Jews are dumb?

Yeah, easy. They reckoned everyone could write except Jews.
And the Jews had no national book or history because they couldn't write.
It's the same as saying they were dumb.

Apparently, it is not so easy. If it was easy you would have posted some writings of prominent atheists who said ancient Jews are dumb.

 

[ecco]

There are at least two problems with this. One, it assumes that someone was with Jesus at all times to make verbatim records of his words. Second, with extensive quotes like the 2000+ word Sermon on the Mount, there was no shorthand in those days, there were no stenographic machines. So "common sense" tells us there is no way that Jesus' words could have been accurately recorded.

There actually was, and "scholars" found it in some of the words used in the New Testament.

You say things but offer no supporting evidence. Anyone can say anything, but that does not make it so.

 

[PruePhillip]

That aphorism is not quite correct. In the case of events that should leave evidence a lack of evidence is evidence of absence. If you hear of a bomb that exploded downtown and cannot find any broken glass, police or fireman driving to or from a site at high speed, no wounded, no sign of any explosion that would be evidence of the lack of such an event.

Now ask yourself, why do we find older writing of other civilizations but none from early Hebrews that supposedly existed? Shouldn't that evidence exist as well? Its lack is evidence of absence since we can readily find such writings form other civilizations.

You say things but offer no supporting evidence. Anyone can say anything, but that does not make it so.

I knew someone would ask for references. Just read this last week, somewhere
by accident. Thought "that's worth remembering" but promptly lost where I found
it. Here's something, but not as good as what I had.
This particular article claims there is a text, complete with shorthand, taken from
the time of Jesus' preaching. Don't know about that one.

If your writing is in papyrus then there's less chance of it surviving than if
you impress in clay, scratch on rocks, paint elaborate tombs or carve it
in stone. The Jews did none of the above.

Ancient Biblical Shorthand

 

[PruePhillip]

Apparently, it is not so easy. If it was easy you would have posted some writings of prominent atheists who said ancient Jews are dumb.

No, I didn't say any scholar said Jesus are dumb, I said that it's implied that if every
kid in the block can read and write, but one can't, then he's dumb.
So I was surprised that scholars were surprised to find evidence of Hebrew writing

I found this
https://phys.org/news/2010-01-ancient-hebrew-biblical-inscription-deciphered.html

quote "..A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures... dating from the
10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that this is a
Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing.
The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the
biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented
today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time."

Interestingly, this also about Roman papyrus pay slips, "Out of the 225 million receipts
that were handed out between the reigns of Augustus and Diocletian (27 B.C.E. to 305
C.E.), only two are known to have survived."

 

[The Anointed]

We know from the records of Augustus, that there were three census’ of the Roman empire, in 28 B.C,. 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. Augustus received the results of the 8 B.C., census in 3 B.C.

We know that General Quirinius in 6-5 B.C., was dealing with the Homonadenses in the Taurus Mountains, which marked the northern limit of the Syrian plain from where Quirinius would have undoubtedly launched his campaign against the Homonadenses, while the census of Augustus was being carried out in Judaea.

Subduction Zone said; “We do census's based upon where people live and it would have been the same back then. You would need to find massive evidence that they did such a crazy pointless task.”

Which massive evidence I gave by revealing that early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating: Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).

The same papyrus also confirmed Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he travelled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads: I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taasies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list” (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).

We know that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C., and that he believed that Jesus was almost 2 years old when the wise men reached Jerusalem.

We know from the scriptures that the wise men who saw the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of Jesus, almost two years previously, while in the Home of Mary and Joseph in Nazareth, were warned to return to their own country and that same night, Joseph was warned in a dream to get up immediately and take Mary and her child and flee into Egypt.

This means that the wise men were in Israel in 4 B.C., the year Herod died, or the months immediately preceding his death two years after the birth of Jesus in 6 B.C.

We know that Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios/Heli, was born in 20 B.C., the same year as Philip the son of Herod and his young Macedonian wife ‘Cleopatra.’

We know that the heavenly sign that the wise men saw, and believed it to be the sign that was to herald the promised Jewish Messiah, occurred in 6 B.C,, the year in which occurred the triple conjunction of Jupiter (The King Planet) with Mars (The God Of War) and Saturn (the “God of Time,” who brings the golden age of peace to the earth,) which I believe was read by the wise men as the sign that was prophesied to herald the birth of the promised King, (Jupiter) who was to succeed to the throne of David the warrior king, (Mars) as the prophesied Messianic King of Israel, who is to come and subdue the surrounding Nations and bring in the golden Age of one thousand years of peace. (Saturn.)

We know that the triple conjunction occurred when Mary was 14 years old, the year that she gave birth to Jesus the Son of Joseph ben Heli, and the year in which Quirinius was dealing with the Homonadenses in the Taurus Mountains, which was two years before the death of Herod the Great.

So I will leave you atheists, who live your lives of hopelessness, to believe as you will.

You will continue to believe, your atheist historians whose only agenda is to cast doubt on the Holy Scriptures, and who believe that ‘THEY’ the minds, who are currently developing within the physical wombs that is ‘THEIR’ bodies, will cease to exist when the life force departs that body. And believe me, the reward that the disembodied spirit/mind believes, is that which the mind will receive.

Flesh and blood does not inherit eternity.

The body that you see---it isn’t really me
It’s but the womb in which I’m being formed
For I am spirit—I am mind
And it’s the only place you’ll find
WHO I AM, until the day I’m finally born.
For I will not be free, until this body that you see
Has returned to the dust from whence it came
It’s then that I’ll be born from this womb in which I’m formed
To continue on in life’s eternal game……..The Anointed.

 

[gnostic]

No, I didn't say any scholar said Jesus are dumb, I said that it's implied that if every
kid in the block can read and write, but one can't, then he's dumb.
So I was surprised that scholars were surprised to find evidence of Hebrew writing

I found this
https://phys.org/news/2010-01-ancient-hebrew-biblical-inscription-deciphered.html

quote "..A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures... dating from the
10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that this is a
Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing.
The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the
biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented
today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time."

Interestingly, this also about Roman papyrus pay slips, "Out of the 225 million receipts
that were handed out between the reigns of Augustus and Diocletian (27 B.C.E. to 305
C.E.), only two are known to have survived."

A couple of 10th century BCE writings, in the paleo-Hebrew alphabet, indicate that some people were literate, but that doesn't validate David or Solomon being real historical people.

Neither artifacts indicate that there was even monarchy, like kings or chieftains.

The Zayit Stone is mostly a bunch of characters, that don't make much sense, like a child learning to write two lines of alphabets. These characters don't make up any word, just random characters. On the other side of the stone is one word (4 characters long) that has been translated to either "help" or "helper".

So only one word that has two possible meaning, but not enough to indicate it related to any scripture.

While the Gezer Calendar, is mostly indication when to plant, sow and harvest crops, based on the seasons of a year. It has nothing to do with David or Solomon, and no indication that the author is aware of any form of government, eg monarchy.

The Gezer Calendar definitely make more sense than the person who had inscribed on the Zayit Stone, but neither showed that the authors were aware of any scripture (eg Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, which were supposedly written by David and Solomon with the last two, or the Torah which was supposedly written by Moses).

Yes, the paleo-Hebrew alphabet prove that the Israelites could write in the 10th century BCE, but in no way does it validate the existence of any scripture around this time or earlier (in the Middle and Late Bronze Age of the preceding millennium).

You are making a big deal about the 10th century writings, where you clearly don't understand the contexts of those writings.

 

[gnostic]

We know from the records of Augustus, that there were three census’ of the Roman empire, in 28 B.C,. 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. Augustus received the results of the 8 B.C., census in 3 B.C.

We know that General Quirinius in 6-5 B.C., was dealing with the Homonadenses in the Taurus Mountains, which marked the northern limit of the Syrian plain from where Quirinius would have undoubtedly launched his campaign against the Homonadenses, while the census of Augustus was being carried out in Judaea.

There were only one general census around 28-27 BCE, not 3.

There were no census while Herod was alive around the time of Jesus' supposed birth in 6 BCE. Varus, the successor of Saturninus, was governor of Syria around this time in 7 or 6 BCE, and remained in office until Herod's death in 4 BCE. Archelaus succeeded Herod in 4 BCE, and remained as a client king for 10 years, until he was banished in 6 BCE.

And there were no census in Judaea until 6 CE, when Quirinius became the new governor of Syria, AND ONLY WHEN AUGUSTUS OUSTED ARCHELAUS from Judaea, turning a client kingdom into a Roman province.

Judaea has only through one census while Augustus was alive, not 3.

Quirinius had nothing to do with Syria, while he was governor of Galatia and fighting the Homonadenses. Quirinius was only governor of Syria, only the one time, after Judaea became a Roman province, not before it.

Lastly, you are trying to rewrite history again.

The term "vicegerent" was a title was only used by the church in Rome and Byzantine Empire, but never used in Augustus' time.

You are using vicegerent anachronistically.

Another term that doesn't exist in Roman politics, is Hegemon. It is neither a rank, nor a title used by Rome.

Augustus had originally wanted Agrippa to succeed him, but Agrippa died in 12 BCE, then he tried to appointed Gaius Caesar, but he died in 4 CE. Eventually Augustus appointed his stepson Tiberius whom he despised as heir-apparent. Quirinius was never had such powers as Agrippa, Gaius Caesar and Tiberius; not in Rome, and not in Syria.

All I would ask from you, is stopped making things up, The Anointed.

 

[PruePhillip]

A couple of 10th century BCE writings, in the paleo-Hebrew alphabet, indicate that some people were literate, but that doesn't validate David or Solomon being real historical people.
Neither artifacts indicate that there was even monarchy, like kings or chieftains.

I call this Godless In The Gaps.
The 19th bible criticisms, such as there being no writing in the
10th Cent BC, or even Hebrew language; no Kings, certainly
no House of David, no united nation, no tribes, no Levites, no
Jews even --- has slowly been whittled back.
There's a house of David, and Solomon was the second of
that dynasty. There's a suggestion even of evidence of the ark
of the covenant.
Yes, God's people never made monuments to themselves,
their only monument is the bible.

 

[gnostic]

I call this Godless In The Gaps.
The 19th bible criticisms, such as there being no writing in the
10th Cent BC, or even Hebrew language; no Kings, certainly
no House of David, no united nation, no tribes, no Levites, no
Jews even --- has slowly been whittled back.
There's a house of David, and Solomon was the second of
that dynasty. There's a suggestion even of evidence of the ark
of the covenant.
Yes, God's people never made monuments to themselves,
their only monument is the bible.

PruePhillip.

Do you really think I give a bloody damn what people from the 19th century been saying?

They are not here, putting their views and arguments before you. I am.

Talking of 19th century Bible criticism have nothing to with me. I’d didn’t quote anyone from this century, and I don’t think I give a crap about their criticism.

All you are doing is presenting strawman.

How about you focusing on what I am saying instead of someone from the past, whom I didn’t presented here?

 

[PruePhillip]

PruePhillip.

Do you really think I give a bloody damn what people from the 19th century been saying?

They are not here, putting their views and arguments before you. I am.

Talking of 19th century Bible criticism have nothing to with me. I’d didn’t quote anyone from this century, and I don’t think I give a crap about their criticism.

All you are doing is presenting strawman.

How about you focusing on what I am saying instead of someone from the past, whom I didn’t presented here?

The point of the 19th Century is there is a process by which history,
archaeology and genetics are catching up with our 'scholars.'
Our society still holds these people as having authority and wisdom,
and the profession is not held to account for past pronouncements.
And you guys quote them.

 

[ecco]

I knew someone would ask for references. Just read this last week, somewhere
by accident. Thought "that's worth remembering" but promptly lost where I found
it. Here's something, but not as good as what I had.
This particular article claims there is a text, complete with shorthand, taken from
the time of Jesus' preaching. Don't know about that one.

If your writing is in papyrus then there's less chance of it surviving than if
you impress in clay, scratch on rocks, paint elaborate tombs or carve it
in stone. The Jews did none of the above.

Ancient Biblical Shorthand

This is from your link...

Matthew an Ancient Stenographer

We now know that the apostle Matthew was a tax collector who had to take skilled shorthand to do his job. It was part of his "job description."
​

Matthew's job description? Where is that? Who says tax collectors had to know shorthand? Who says Matthew was a tax collector?

Matthew 9:9-13​

9 Next, while moving on from there, Jesus caught sight of a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office, and he said to him: “Be my follower.” At that he rose up and followed him.

Are you saying that the Matthew sitting at a tax office is the same Matthew who is writing about the incident and quoting Jesus?

​

If that is the case, it would have been written...

Next, while moving on from there, Jesus caught sight of me, Matthew, sitting at the tax office, and he said to me: “Be my follower.” At that I rose up and followed him.

Also, Luke says the tax collector was named Le'vi.
​

More from your link...

Matthew an Ancient Stenographer

In 1994 we also learned that the oldest fragment from Matthew's gospel - formerly kept at Oxford Library - is now dated by a scanning laser microscope to be an eyewitness account written by contemporaries of Christ! (The Times, London, 12-24-94).
​

The only thing here is a vague, untraceable reference to an alleged article in the London Times from 1994.

Would you believe me if I said I have an article from the London Times from 1995 that rebuts the 1994 article? I doubt it, and well you shouldn't.

 

[ecco]

Can you present any writings of prominent atheists who said ancient Jews are dumb? Or is that just something that you wrote to make a feel-good general criticism of atheists?

No, I didn't say any scholar said Jesus are dumb, I said that it's implied that if every
kid in the block can read and write, but one can't, then he's dumb.

Here is what you asserted...

Jews are smart people - lots of atheists cast them as being dumb, just because they didn't see great monuments to their glory.

I had never heard atheists refer to ancient Jews as being dumb. Therefore, I challenged your assertion. Please stop evading. I'll ask again, can you present any writings of prominent atheists who said ancient Jews are dumb? Or is that just something that you wrote to make a feel-good general criticism of atheists?