tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post330826991794056313..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Coins from the time of Yosef, bearing Yosef's name, found in Egyptjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-16616563327613397092011-11-08T14:14:19.970-05:002011-11-08T14:14:19.970-05:00c'est très bien tout cela ,mais aujourd'hu...c'est très bien tout cela ,mais aujourd'hui ,peut-on avancer un nom pour le pharaon et son rêve ,car il était question de ça aussi dans l'article,si j'ai bonne mémoire?<br />Nous sommes en fin 2011 et personne à ma connaissance ne sait répondre à cette question? curieux?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-85243032972457057202009-09-25T14:45:52.113-04:002009-09-25T14:45:52.113-04:00Great find! Won't be surprised if we find out ...Great find! Won't be surprised if we find out who was Pharaoh at the time... None other than Joseph's son Menashe or Pharoah MenesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-53560326935120187262009-09-25T13:54:45.484-04:002009-09-25T13:54:45.484-04:00discussion of silver ingots, by weight, can be see...discussion of silver ingots, by weight, can be seen here:<br /><br />http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/sarasvati/html/mesop2.htmjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-15300158683473895172009-09-25T13:51:26.207-04:002009-09-25T13:51:26.207-04:00unless they bartered for gold, which was a commodi...unless they bartered for gold, which was a commodity. (but you are right, it would contradict the idea that it was solely a bartering system, if bars of gold were regularly used as a form of currency.)<br /><br />one can say that it disproves the barter system theory. on the other hand, others will say that it disproves the authenticity of the Torah, since it contains an anachronism...<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-30512787384870957592009-09-25T13:39:41.156-04:002009-09-25T13:39:41.156-04:00Even if it means bars of silver, that disproves th...Even if it means bars of silver, that disproves the barter system theory.yaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179304707239865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-25128102850299913322009-09-25T13:00:35.973-04:002009-09-25T13:00:35.973-04:00well, kesef can mean either silver coins or simply...well, kesef can mean either silver coins or simply silver. that can mean bars of silver, for example.<br /><br />in chayei sarah, it says וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר. literally, this means that he weighed out the silver.<br /><br />what to do with the midrash in the gemara that says "vayichan et pnei hair" means that Yaakov established coinage; well, either it is ahistorical and they didn't know it, or else it was intended allegorically, something i already had leanings towards in this particular case.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-51276016889350517402009-09-25T12:39:09.473-04:002009-09-25T12:39:09.473-04:00How about Bereishit 47:14-18, which clearly mentio...How about <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0147.htm#14" rel="nofollow">Bereishit 47:14-18</a>, which clearly mentions Kesef?yaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179304707239865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-3303178249061112672009-09-25T12:06:12.215-04:002009-09-25T12:06:12.215-04:00"That would be a good argument if..."
a ..."That would be a good argument if..."<br />a good, solid counter-argument. and i agree that it is not mere absence of evidence, but that we would have expected, etc. still, <b>if</b> the thinking does prevail when evaluating all sorts of new evidence, it would not allow the tide of evidence to turn.<br /><br />and as i said, i am quite suspicious of this.<br /><br />re: camels<br />"That's not a solid argument..."<br />I was not making an argument for or against domesticated camels, which, btw, i think opinion has shifted on. my point was to give an *actual* example in which a camel figurine was labeled as a horse, because of this type of thinking. fine, label it a camel and give the answer you gave. but that was not was done by the archaeologist in question. it was <b>in fact</b> labeled as a horse, and the thinking behind it was likely precisely what i delineated. so it is not a solid argument i am trying to present, but rather a description of the thinking process. at least if <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1781" rel="nofollow">this website</a> is to be believed. (scroll to about the middle.)<br /><br />all the best,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-20705739982707091942009-09-25T11:38:18.774-04:002009-09-25T11:38:18.774-04:00And how does he know that coins weren't invent...<i>And how does he know that coins weren't invented before then? Because of existing archeological evidence! Which this would then contradict, as being earlier evidence! </i><br /><br />That would be a good argument if we were talking about an isolated or relatively obscure culture. However, we're talking about Egypt - the most powerful, well-connected, most-traded-with, and most influential culture in the region.<br /><br />If they had coins and used them in commerce, the idea would have become widespread then, not 1000 years later, as the archaeological evidence indicates.<br /><br />Coins are also among the most well-traveled artifacts. Being made of precious metals, coins from differing lands could be used anywhere, unlike today, with coins being specific to the issuing countries. So they spread all over. However, there seems to be no record or these Egyptian coins either physically (the coins themselves) or in written records (litst of items left behind recording what was traded and what they were traded for, lists of treasury items, etc.) The MEMRI article mentions a "deben" but it appears that the researcher himself has defined the deben as a coin, not the written records that he is referring to. They could just as easily be referring to a measure.<br /><br />I not that the article mentions that these objects were originally thought to be charms or ornaments, but that the proposers of the coin idea discard this idea. However, the presented reasons - oval shape, decorated on both sides, found in various locations, does not mean that they are not charms or votives. Various locations means nothing without context, which this article does not supply. <br /><br />In fact the article mentions nothing about the archaeological context in which these "coins" were found. Without context, it is very hard to make an assesment about an artifact, let alone claim that it is an artifact that will revolutionize our numismatic timeline.<br /><br />This, however, from MEMRI, is very telling:<br /><br />" Another telling fact is that the coins come in different sizes and are made of different materials, including ivory, precious stones, copper, silver, gold, etc." <br /><br />Small oval objects made out ot ivory and precious stones, in addition to silver and gold? That's a "telling fact" that they are amulets, not coins.<br /><br /><br /><i>It reminds me of the claim that camels were not domesticated in ancient Mesopotamia in patriarchal times. Then, they discovered a figurine of a camel. But it couldn't be a camel, because camels had not been domesticated yet! So it was a horse with odd humps.</i><br /><br />That's not a solid argument. We've seen figurines of whales, and no one has domesticated whales yet. <br /><br />Lions, leopards, wolves, etc. have long been used in sculpture, but these animals have never been domesticated. Sure, the occaisional king had a lion or the like in his "collection", but they were, and are still, undomesticated creatures.<br /><br />People making figurines or paintings of wild animals that they have seen but have not yet domesticated is not unusual at all.<br />We've been doing it since we invented art.Archnoreply@blogger.com