Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is a very flexible and limber man. What I mean is, he really knows how to stretch. One of his stretches is called the "Igorot Law is Derived From Hebrew Law" pose. It's a combination of downward dog and the sitting lotus position at the same time. A very difficult posture to achieve. In fact it's impossible but that has not stopped Tim from trying. He first attempted this pose in his videos.
 |
| Solomon's Gold Series - Part 7: Track of the Hebrew to the Philippines. Ophir, Sheba, Tarshish |
Then he tried this stretch in his book The Search For King Solomon's Treasure.
Now, I am only a fallible man. My previous analysis of this claim could be incorrect. So, why not ask ChatGPT, one of the A.I. chatbots which Tim declares has given his books and thesis a rating of "strong accept?" Surely ChatGPT will "strongly accept" Tim's connection between Hebrew and Igorot Law.
I uploaded the source of Tim's claims which is two paragraphs from R.F. Barton. Actually he only uses six words from a single sentence but the whole context is necessary and, while it's not in his main book, he does have that context in his Sourcebook. Then I uploaded Tim's claims from his videos and books and asked for a comparison and analysis. ChatGPT had this to say:
Claim: The authors assert that they are "not proving" the Igorots are Hebrews but then heavily imply it through suggestive “evidence.”
Analysis:
This rhetorical strategy—claiming not to make a claim while heavily implying one—is typical of pseudo-historical narratives. It creates the illusion of objectivity while advancing a speculative argument.
Oh, no! That does not sound like a rating of "strong accept" to me. It also agrees with what I previously wrote:
It is interesting that Tim says Igorot is a Hebrew word and Igorot language and law have Hebrew similarities but then says he is not trying to prove that Igorots are Hebrew when that is the implication of what he has said.
https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-god-culture-100-lies-about.html
The chat is posted below and can be read here.
ChatGPT said:
This passage offers a historical and anthropological analysis of the development of Ifugao law, placing it within a broader framework of legal evolution as outlined by R.R. Cherry. Here's a breakdown and analysis of its key points:
1. The Antiquity of Ifugao Culture and Law
The text opens by asserting that Ifugao culture—and by implication, its legal system—is ancient. Despite this antiquity, its legal structure is said to reflect the first stage of law development. This signals that age alone does not necessarily correlate with legal complexity or centralization.
2. R.R. Cherry’s Legal Development Framework
The passage uses Cherry’s four-stage model as a lens to evaluate Ifugao law:
Stage 1: Simple retaliation (lex talionis) – "an eye for an eye"
Stage 2: Vengeance can be compensated with payment
Stage 3: Community (tribe/elders) mediates and imposes standardized penalties
Stage 4: Crimes are viewed as offenses against the state
The Ifugao are said to be in the latter part of Stage 1—not yet at the point of standardized tribal mediation, but already showing some movement toward compensation in cases of accidental harm.
3. The Distinction Between Intentional and Accidental Harm
A critical point made is that intentional murder of a kinsman cannot be compensated—this reflects a moral and cultural boundary that compensation cannot cross. Such acts remain under the logic of strict retaliation and honor.
However, accidental killings are treated differently—here, payment might be accepted, indicating an emerging concept of differentiated culpability. This nuance suggests a transitional moment, perhaps foreshadowing progression to the second stage.
4. Ifugao Law Compared to Other Traditions
The comparison to Hebrew law and 19th-century Mohammedan (Islamic) law aims to elevate the status of Ifugao legal traditions, suggesting that it should not be dismissed as “primitive.” Rather, it is a highly developed form of a first-stage system, with clear internal logic and structure.
5. Legal Sophistication Without State Centralization
A noteworthy implication is that a legal system can be sophisticated and consistent without being centralized or state-run. Ifugao law is community-based and honor-bound, yet functional and socially cohesive.
Conclusion
Ifugao law, according to this analysis, is in a transitional phase within the first stage of legal development. It upholds retaliation for serious intentional offenses, but allows for compensation in lesser or accidental cases. This places it firmly within Cherry’s early legal model, while still showing sophistication and cultural nuance. The comparison with Hebrew and Islamic law suggests that legal systems should not be judged merely by how centralized or codified they are, but by how well they function within their own social contexts.
Would you like a version of this written more formally for use in an academic piece?
You said:
compare and analyze these claims with that analysis: Solomon's Gold Series - Part 7: Track of the Hebrew to the Philippines. Ophir, Sheba, Tarshish 27:21 Well, the Igorot people who live in Ifugao and surrounding areas are a mystery. Igorot is a Hebrew word meaning letters. We do not know a certain application for this meaning in this case but their language has been likened to that of Hebrew and even their law ranks fairly with Hebrew law. The purpose of this video is not to prove the Igorots or other tribes are Hebrew but we are seeking Hebrew words and we have already found many. The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pgs. 202-203 Igorot: Hebrew: iggereth: תרגא: (eeg-ge-roht, iggerOt): A letter, an epistle. What kind of writing may this refer? According to R.F. Barton writing in “American Archaeology and Ethnology” in 1919, “It (Igorot law) ranks fairly with Hebrew law.” You will also find a similar calendar in the Igorot communities to that of the Bible. Additionally, we have been exploring volcano names as well and many remember this tragic eruption from the 1980s.
ChatGPT said:
The claims made in Solomon’s Gold Series – Part 7 and The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure attempt to associate the Igorot people—especially the Ifugao subgroup—with the ancient Hebrews, using linguistic speculation, vague cultural parallels, and a reference to R.F. Barton’s anthropological work. Let’s examine these claims in comparison to the more scholarly and contextual analysis of Ifugao law:
1. Misuse of Barton’s Statement on Ifugao Law
Claim: The authors cite R.F. Barton, claiming that “Igorot law ranks fairly with Hebrew law,” and use this to imply a deeper connection between the Igorots and ancient Hebrews.
Analysis:
The actual quote from Barton is: “It ranks fairly with Hebrew law, or even with the Mohammedan law of a century ago.”
Barton is not making an ethnolinguistic or genealogical claim. He is commenting on the stage of legal development as understood in legal anthropology, particularly through R.R. Cherry’s framework. Barton’s point is comparative, functional, and evolutionary—not genealogical or ethnic.
Barton states that Ifugao law is in the latter part of the first stage of legal development, characterized by retaliation and limited acceptance of compensation—not fully developed codified law. By contrast, Hebrew law, especially post-Exilic, is part of a second or third-stage legal system, depending on which phase is referenced (e.g., Mosaic, Rabbinic, etc.).
🔎 Conclusion: The authors of Solomon’s Gold Series misuse Barton’s statement. They extract a comparative legal observation and reframe it as evidence of ethnic or linguistic continuity, which Barton never intended.
2. Igorot and Hebrew: Linguistic Stretch
Claim: The term “Igorot” comes from the Hebrew iggereth (אִגֶּרֶת), meaning “letter” or “epistle.”
Analysis:
The claim is purely phonetic and speculative. “Igorot” is widely accepted to derive from native Philippine languages, with “golot” meaning “mountain,” hence i-golot = “people of the mountains.”
The Hebrew word iggereth (אִגֶּרֶת) bears no known historical, cultural, or linguistic relationship to Austronesian languages or to Philippine ethnolinguistic history.
No credible linguistic methodology is used in the book or video. It lacks etymological rigor and does not account for phonological shifts, historical contact, or semantic context. It is a classic example of folk etymology used to advance a narrative.
🔎 Conclusion: The linguistic connection is unsupported by scholarly linguistic evidence. It reflects confirmation bias rather than objective linguistic comparison.
3. Cultural Parallels: Law and Calendar
Claim: The Igorots have a law similar to Hebrew law and a calendar like that in the Bible.
Analysis:
As discussed, Barton’s comparison is functional and evolutionary, not evidential of common origin.
The claim about calendars is vague and unsubstantiated. There is no evidence that Ifugao or Igorot communities follow a calendar system with Hebraic elements (e.g., lunar-based, festival-aligned, or Levitical timekeeping).
Many ancient and indigenous communities across the world developed their own forms of lunar or agricultural calendars. Similarity does not imply derivation—it often reflects convergent cultural evolution.
🔎 Conclusion: The assertion about calendars is anecdotal and lacks scholarly support. The comparison of law, as stated earlier, is also misrepresented.
4. Broader Methodological Issues
Claim: The authors assert that they are "not proving" the Igorots are Hebrews but then heavily imply it through suggestive “evidence.”
Analysis:
This rhetorical strategy—claiming not to make a claim while heavily implying one—is typical of pseudo-historicalnarratives. It creates the illusion of objectivity while advancing a speculative argument.
The approach lacks peer-reviewed sources, rigorous linguistic or archaeological methodology, or any recognition of counterevidence.
Summary Comparison Table
Aspect Barton’s Scholarly Analysis Solomon’s Gold Series Legal comparison Functional; based on legal development stages Misrepresented as evidence of shared heritage Language link None Ignores linguistic scholarship, makes phonetic leaps Calendar comparison Not discussed Vague, unsubstantiated claim Methodology Anthropological, comparative, evolutionary Speculative, cherry-picked, confirmation bias Conclusion drawn Ifugao law is a mature first-stage system Implies ethnic/Hebrew connection without evidence Final Assessment
The claims made by Solomon’s Gold Series and The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure grossly misrepresent Barton’s anthropological work and use speculative linguistics and cherry-picked cultural parallels to suggest connections that are not supported by any serious scholarship. By contrast, Barton’s analysis is a careful functional assessment of the Ifugao legal system within a comparative framework and says nothing about Hebrew ancestry.
If you'd like, I can help you format this into a more formal critique or even into a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal for publication.
No comments:
Post a Comment