h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm going to see if I can calculate the era. Jews have it counted exactly from creation; I'll have to work backwards.

Am going to spend the evening curled up with a few books checking my stories.

I've got it pasted in now. It's rather long - on to four pages in MS Word - and I've left out an awful lot.

Thanks! I'll see how to state that. I hate getting apologetic on topics that get people huffy, and right now I think I sound that way.

Actually, check this out:
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/exodusscptcs.html

and this thing called the Ipuwer papyrus.
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about147515.html (scroll down)


Is that archeological evidence? Time to call in an expert...

Good Evening Leo. -- ÒThere is no archeological (archaeological sp) evidence supporting the existence of Moses or any of the incidents associated with him, so all knowledge about him comes from the Old Testament and the Medrash.Ó - Okay, now we're really in my area of study! Archaeological evidence would be, say, excavating a house site, and finding a letter from Grandma to Moses, with all love....Textual histories, whether in the form of written histories, like Pliny the Elder, or in the form of religious texts, which is all we have here, aren't really 'archaeological' evidence (though they are material evidence of something) unless they date from the period about which they are written and contain enough evidence of known material characteristics that the other content can reasonably be assumed (not known) to have some accuracy. Some sources date Moses to 1314-1313 BC, based, I think, on the known social upheaval in Egypt after Rameses' rule, which they believe is reflected in the OT stories. The textual content of the religious documents, itself, likely dates from a much later date, and like many such documents, was likely recorded from oral histories. Now, oral history is far more flexible than recorded history. Things change in culture, and as they do, oral traditions warp a bit here and there to adapt. So whatever oral histories were recorded, they likely reflect a bit of history, a bit of religous tradition, and a bit of the current political climate in which the recorder was living. (The Gospel of John being a good example Ð but you can read about that if I stop typing here, and get busy on my own!) I printed out your piece, and will give some more feedback soon. Looks like a great start.

What *is* your area of study exactly?

Also, one of the links above claimed to present archeological evidence to the Israelites being in Egypt and then leaving . Not sure what to make of it - it seems rather circumstantial, but then so is most evidence.

Hey, Z, what does your book say on the topic?

There's a inscribed stone in the Egyptian Archaeological Museum in Cairo which says that during the reign of (some pharaoh), the people of (somewhere, could be Israel) left Egypt. It doesn't say anything else about them.

Leo, my area of study was specifically anthropology, with a heavy emphasis (at first) on mythology and religion, and (later) psychological anthropology. But I work in archaeology and cartography (what do you do with an anthro degree but teach, really?). I took a look at the sites you noted, and I'd be careful about citing them. Remember the shroud of Jesus being found a few (20?) years back? People (my mother-in-law) are still claiming that as physical evidence of JesusÕ resurrection, although it was quickly discredited (with a smaller amount of fanfare than it was found, of course). Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses, which has a not-so-trite summary of Moses and history. And, yes, there were many, many immigrants in Egypt during the time. Probably people from the area around Palestine, probably people who identified themselves with Israel. But we don't know which one was Moses, therefore- no physical evidence. But don't interpret that as bad. Archaeology is the study of material (hold in your hands, or tweezers) stuff. History is the study (among other things) of documents. They work together, and neither is perfect in any way! Oh Ð there are, of course, folks that claim evidence of the Red Sea parting, exodus, etc. http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/red_sea.htm Similar to creation science. Why canÕt they just say Ð we have faith, and thatÕs what will get us through Ð and leave science for the scientists? Sorry Ð my own little gripe!

Right with you on that. I wasn't going to link to any of those sites, but was wondering if the topic required more research before I can say "there is no archeological evidence..." Gnomon's contributed another possible piece. It may not make it a historical fact, but it would count as 'evidence', wouldnt it?

Interesting to see where Wiki and me diverged. They put in things I left out, and left out things I put in. I kept it biographical; they went analytic. I'm glad to see that someone else did a lot of my math for me, though.

They've got an even fatter entry on Jesus. Ah, controversy. Wonderful thing.

hey - check this one out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp?aigHomeCountry=United+Kingdom&aigEvents=United+Kingdom&aigBookstore=United+Kingdom On Gnomon's piece - not evidence, really, of Moses. But evidence of lots of foreigners. Maybe one was Moses, but maybe not. The above link has some good info, as well as an intro into the controversy. I would reword, and not call it 'archaeological' evidence. Rather, a short explanation of where what we know came from, and why there are weaknesses (from an empirical point of view) in calling it 'history'? If you say 'no evidence' people will tromp you, so DIYDDIYD! I revised my statements about the Historical Jesus a bit to deal with the problem. Maybe there's an entry on here that deals with historical sources? Then we could both source it, and have done. I'll look around.

I should have studied this before I commented. Apparently the only inscription in Egypt mentioning Israel is as follows:

"In room 13 you will find a stele [carved flat stone] inscribed on the front by Merneptah (1213 - 1203 BC) as to how 'Israel is crushed, it has no more seed.' This is the only reference to Israel in Ancient Egypt and refers to the Biblical Exodus from Egypt. Merneptah was the son of Ramses II and the Exodus took place during either one or the other's reign."

I remember the stone, but I didn't remember exactly what it said.

That sounds kind of shaky.
For someone who's gone, you're awfully present, Gnomon.



The site did seem fairly sensible. I guess I'll revise. Evidence of exodus doesn't prove a Moses, but it comes pretty close.

Any comments on my piece? Silence is ominous. People are always quiet when one's efforts are too embarrassing and they're trying to think of something nice to say.

Okay, Leo, since I know how hard it is to wait for review and I read yours last night (don't worry - I don't think its silence - just the daily grind) IÕll start with some general comments. DonÕt take anything too seriously Ð most are stylistic things, but I had a few questions that I highlight, too. The overall structure of your piece is good. You might want to start with an "exciting" quote to lead in your first sentence. I also found myself wondering a lot about the connection between early Jewish texts and the OT, so you might want to expand on that, or better yet don't mention the OT at all. Jews have their own documents (Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), so call it that, as opposed to the OT (that's a deucedly Christian term). Maybe describe the documents quickly first off, so people can get a mental map of the Jewish scriptural library. I would say, avoid terms such as Ôfirst prince of IsraelÕ unless you couch them with Ôwhom Jews consider the first prince of IsraelÕ. Otherwise, it sounds biased. IÕd define ÔexegesisÕ in a footnote. What exactly is Medrash? Is it a book title or does it mean something like parable? Perhaps an explanation would help clarify. Avoid words like Ôdigresses,Õ because they also sound biased Ð instead maybe ÔThe Medrash explains the Tanakh (or Hebrew Bible), in largely metaphoric language, and expands on the it with moral teachings.Õ Cite your quote with a footnote Ð where could I go to find it? Okay Ð this is a style thing, so take it with a grain of salt: IÕd try to tie some ideas together into longer sentences. ÔIsraelites migrated to Egypt during a famine in their homeland, and many integrated into Egyptian society and remained.Õ But, then, I always liked Kafkaesque sentences. Typo in third major paragraph Ð ÔIsraelites to participate (not ing)Õ. River Nile (or Nile River- again that style thing). I didnÕt quite understand MiriamÕs argument to her parents. ÔTrenchantlyÕ makes her sound like a teen perhaps? Alright Ð enough for now, particularly since I canÕt seem to use carriage returns in my postings cause they do funny things (witness):
Overall, a great start! IÕd better get reading and writing my ownÉ What are you studying, by the way?

Thanks! Big help. It's very difficult to treat topics you know too much about in a way that people who know very little find understandable. I will make all the ammendations I can.

I'm a english and psych major, minor in IT. Don't ask, please.

No need to ask! Smarter than I was. At least you'll have a fall-back discipline to earn a living paying off the student loans!

===

copying your corrections for offline work. Be back in 3 or 4 days to read your entry.
===

Hi, all. I'm struggling with length on my piece about Jesus, and am fishing for suggestions. I have already changed the piece to include only the synoptic gospels, and focused down on one unique characteristic of Jesus from each of the 3 gospels, rather than a full on comparison-contrast piece, but I'm still at 3200 words (with footnotes and code, so a little shorter), and haven't gotten into Luke, where I really want to do a full blown comparison with parts of Matthew. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I've posted some of my own notes with the article itself. Thanks in advance for any helpful comment (or nitpicking, although it's still in self-edit)! Gospel reading in time for Easter...

A10784090

Spend the past few days with a Bible, a 'Midrash Says' and a book I found called "Gospel Fiction" - not the most objective primer, but better than nothing; otherwise I wouldn't know what you mean by 'synoptic'. Admittedly, it made me pretty curious to see what the Christians have to say on the topic.

Anyway, still not much online time, so I'm copying yours over to read offline. Will get back to you in the next few days.

Started working on your corrections; it was just the beginning. I'm not forcing you to produce more, just mentioning that you don't nee to worry about my reaction to criticism - I like it just fine, and the nastiest thing you can say is tame compared to what my friends give.

Thanks Leo. I'll continue with comments on yours on a thread directly attached. Probably not tonight, though. Catch you later this week.

And I'll append yours to yours...
now.

nevermind, I'll stick it here. having issues with computer again.

>>Very few people have likely read the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in full, but rather have developed their understanding of Jesus from a realm of cultural cues that permeate western society. Depending on where a person receives their cues - which church, school, media outlet, or country, among others - his or her picture of who Jesus Christ is may differ dramatically.This guide examines the life of Jesus as presented in the three synoptic gospels in the New Testament (NT).<<

Firstly, put a space between ‘dramatically’ and ‘this’.

Since you want to shorten the piece, and since the entry has a lot of explanatory introduction before even touching the gospels, cutting the explanation is probably the best place to start.
I would try to merge the sentence that people get their cues from non-canonical sources with the sentence about how these views will then differ.

The last sentence I don’t like in general for stylistic purposes. “This will,” and “in this” strikes me as rather gauche, but I’ve seen it in many scientific papers, so that’s likely a point where the English degree people diverge from those with other degrees. At any rate, you could change the sentence to say that the best or most complete or more authentic view would be got from the gospels.

While on the topic of shortening, that’s a long quote you open with. Just a consideration.
While I’m looking at the quote, tell me, what language is “lema sabachthani” in?

>>Many scholars will agree that Jesus was a Jew, probably living in northern Palestine (Lower Galilee) in the early first century AD. Most will accept that an historical Jesus did indeed exist, but beyond the gospels, some early Christian apocryphal texts, and historical evidence about the time-period in which he lived, there is little empirical evidence of who he was. Even relatively accepted dates, such as his birth-year of 4 BC, are gathered from known historical happenings that are mentioned in biblical texts, rather than from any physical evidence. Therefore, the gospels and other texts that have survived the last two centuries are the primary sources from which we can glean an understanding of Jesus. This guide will focus on the canonical synoptic gospels - that is, the first three gospels found in the New Testament of the Christian Bible - and their portrayals of Jesus.<<

You ought to write “how to” books or something, you’re so careful and thorough. You could, of course, skip the example and just say that since there isn’t much external data on the fellow the best sources – or only sources, as the case may be – are the gospels. You have to justify your sources, but do it briefly.

Again, you mention your focus. Firstly, it should be “this entry” not “this guide”, but aside from that – well, you know my objection.

>> In order to provide the greatest understanding of what may to the uninitiated be four paintings<<

I’d stick commas around ‘to the uninitiated’, but I know that’s controversial turf.

>>Things that were considered heretical (or contrary to what church leaders of the time liked, perhaps)<<

I’d cut the parentheses. They are probably the same thing anyway, as good church leaders would not like anything heretical, and church leaders with an agenda would call anything they didn’t like heretical, so why risk insulting?

>>and the current New Testament books were then edited and compiled into what we know today as The Bible.<<

May I qualify that as the Christian bible or something? I also make references to the bible in my entry, but mine is the Hebrew Bible, or something.

>>The following is a summary of one analysis of the origins of the canonical synoptic gospels and John. It is by no means the only reading. For those interested in delving further into the subject, there are many books and several good websites that deal with controversies surrounding the synoptic gospels. One with many links to other scriptural interpretation sites is VirtualReligion. Another, secular, source is the American PBS Religion Site.3<<

Well, I don’t like the “the following” bit, but the whole paragraph ought to go. You can reference the sites using the tag, (if you need pointers on using it, check out the approved ML page) and the rest is self explanatory, or should be.

>>Mark to make it entirely plausible that the author(s) had access to that earlier document.4<<

Including the footnote: just wondering if you really want to go here. If the focus is supposed to be on the portrayal of Jesus through the gospels, and you conclude in the footnote that the date of the writing is a moot point, why go into it? You could then remove this from all the gospel intros.

>>although its authorship and where it was composed are issues of controversy.<<

I know you like ‘em long, but I like ‘em brief even when they’re long, so I’d probably confound the sentence by saying
“although its authorship and location of composition…”
Just a preference there.


Regarding footnotes 5 and 6:
I’ve never seen sources cited academically here – or even non-academically, like that.

>>Luke is written in a structure with which modern audiences may find themselves familiar &#8730; linear temporality and a conversant style.<<

Does that mean Matthew isn’t? Also, you explain “linear temporality” and “conversant style” within the next 4 sentences, so why not skip this sentence and say that the gospel according to luke is written in the traditional style of Hellenistic history? *chop* There goes a sentence. (Can you tell that I’m a student who occasionally struggles with word limits on term papers? )

>>The canonical gospels are the primary vehicle from which the western world has arrived at its understanding of Jesus' life. But outside of bits people learn from Sunday school, church, cultural input (eg, television), and friends, how many people have actually read the gospels word for word? If a person has not, it is likely that he or she has a harmonized picture of Jesus. Whether that picture comes from a movie, childhood Bible stories, or even an organized Bible study, it is likely that the mental picture is somewhat of a hotchpotch of pieces of all four gospels, frosted with tradition.<<

You kind of said this before. In the intro-intro. Chop-chop… and replace with a single sentence.

>>he tells parables, or short stories meant to teach.<<
Parables, I believe, are meant to explain otherwise complicated concepts.

>>He is a miracle worker, who heals the sick, and fights off Satan in the desert.<<

Eliminate first comma. Actually, eliminate second comma too.

>>And, in all three, Jesus eats a Last Supper, is denied by Peter, betrayed by Judas, and dies on the cross, only to be resurrected.<<
The English major in me protests the unnecessary “and” heading a sentence.
“denied by Peter” – meaning his godliness is denied? I must admit, my first understanding was that he was denied the mashed potatoes at the last supper, but maybe I should have a snack and then reread…

>>Simple differences include the lack of the birth narrative in Mark, and the descriptions of Jesus as a child in Luke. But each gospel also presents Jesus in slightly different ways, perhaps as looking at the same man through variously tinted lenses.<<

First comma should go. “But” can be cut from second sentence.

>>The following is a literary comparison of Jesus in the synoptic gospels, as opposed to a religious one. The goal is to ignore 2000 years of exegesis, politics and religious frosting and look at the gospels as if they are literature.<<

Again, statement of goals. You could say “attempt to” since you admit in the footnote that it is essentially impossible. Also, you don’t want to “look at the gospels as if they are literature” (actually, you probably do, but hear me out,) allow me to suggest “to compare the gospels as if they are literature”. Nobody can get insulted about that, I think.

>>failing to forgive, committing @dultery (including in thought alone), divorce (because it causes @dultery), and swearing falsely. He commands obedience to rules about prayer, possessions, fasting, and conduct toward God and men. <<

Are you British? I believe hootoo leaves out the comma before “and” in a series.

>>Matthew is ultimately a collection of prescriptions and proscriptions regarding human actions and how they will lead to eternal life with God or eternal burning in hell, and Jesus is a strict teacher, who warns that he will deny any that stray from his path of righteousness.<<

Whee! Kafka would be proud!

>>The theme of battle, vi0lence, and betrayal<<

Same ‘and’ thing here. I probably wont bother to point ‘em all out, so best give the entry a run-through check. Then again, it can always be sub-edited out, so don’t give yourself a headache over it.

>>when his disciples fail to heal an epileptic boy, he says,c<<
Elilminate first comma.


I haven’t focused much on shortening this section, because I think it’s the important part of the entry. I could though, if you think it would be helpful.