This belief thing

This annoys me. It is not a "helpmeet", it is a "help meet" - that is a fitting or proper helper. if you are going to use translations that old, bear in mind that their vocabulary will be that old, and archaic uses, like that of "meet" will be found.

Could be the influence of the Nation of Islam, which has been rather nutty in various ways.

I've read enough of LamarckNewAge's posts to suspect it is the sort of thing he'd do. And to be fair the crazier ideas would stick in the mind more and it isn't as if ordinary Muslims are going to spontaneously start denying them any more than Christians would start spontaneously denying Mormon ideas.

quote:

---

The Bible Unearthed , by Israel Finkelstein, is always a book for sale.

---

That's a book on archaeology and the Bible and pretty much in the mainstream (of archaeologists), if maybe tending a little towards the minimalists. It doesn't suggest that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were anywhere but Palestine.

quote:

---

But is allows for the possibility of no know "Jews" before 700 to 750 BCE.

---

I don't think so. I certainly don't remember it offering any reason to believe that. If you have anything in mind I would appreciate exact quotes - and I will check them.

quote:

---

It could have been an imitation name of 5000 year old Arabians or Africans. Either an eponymous tribesman or simply a famous figure that left no offspring.

---

So why take a book which suggests that David and Soloman ruled Judah as supporting this idea ? One that points to archaeological evidence of a people of at least similar culture to the inhabitants of Israel, a population that remained in place even after the Babylonians deported the elite and we're still there when Cyrus let the exiles return ?It's about as silly as the idea that the Western Wall - part of Herod's additions to the Second Temple - isn't Jewish.

That doesn't change the fact that the archaeological evidence - the whole point of the book - doesn't support such a claim.If Judah was populated by people kin to the Israelites from well before the 8th Century BC, if that population was swelled by refugees from Israel in the mid-8th Century, and the combined population mostly stayed put through the Babylonian Exile then it doesn't really matter when the Biblical texts were written. And if they are a Canaanite people, living in the region as pastoral nomads even earlier - as Finkelstein suggests - then they are hardly newcomers or outsiders.

Finkelstein outright denies that the entire population of Israel was deported. Instead he says that "most of the surviving Israelites were left on the land" says that in the hill country around Samaria "the deportations were minimal" and talks about a "surprising demographic continuity". He also refers to 2 Chronicles 30:1 as indicating that Israelites remained.

I've checked the pages, and since I have a different edition I checked the index too. I could find no references to the Temple being built later.ABEAccording to the Talk page, other Wikipedians have also had problems verifying the claims. Edited by PaulK, : Discussion on Talk page is relevant

quote:

---

He might say that, but there were still Assyrian records of 10s of thousands of removals and replacements with as many transplants.

---

So now you're rejecting Finkelsteins claims because they are against the idea of a ""discontinuity". What's the point in citing the book if you are going to disagree with it ?And really, even if the Assyrian records do say what you claim - and I'll wait for evidence of that - why should they override the archaeological evidence ? Hyperbole is hardly unknown in the Middle East - ancient and modern.

So, no detailed numbers of the deportations, just vague statements which are assumed to include everyone who isn't serving as military.And 2 Chronicles 30 indicates that there were Israelites still living in Israel at that time.And even then we have to take account of the refugees fleeing to Judah, which undermines the whole idea of a discontinuity.

quote:

---

Now the archaeological evidence shows that "Israel" might have existed in the 10th century but Judah didn't exist until Israelite refugees flooded Judah and Jerusalem around 720 BCE.

---

As I keep pointing out that is not true. The archaeological evidence shows that Judah was settled before then - emerging about the same time as Israel, that the people were very similar to the Israelites, and that they carried in living there all through the period.Besides, even if the locals were entirely replaced by refugees from Israel, how would that help the claimed "discontinuity" ? They're still Hebrews, of the tribes of Israel.

Missed this,not that it's worth much other than as an example of the way some people will cling to ideas despite the evidence.

quote:

---

Well, there are many different views on the numbers of refugees (in all directions). Here is what the Biblical text says about what you cite. It was a small number of people, and they might have been foreigners who assumed Israelite identity.

---

In other words, as I said, the Bible is not clear on the scale of the deportations. And really, if you are trying to insist that the Bible is inaccurate why keep citing it against the archaeological evidence ?

quote:

---

There were deportations before 722/721. And immigration inward too.

---

Of course the disagreement is in the scale of these events. I'm going with Finkelstein and Silberman. Funny how you bring up the book and then keep disagreeing with it.

quote:

---

A.H. Sayce was the leading apologist before Albright. Here was one of his most important defenses of the Old Testament history.

---

I.e. He lived before the archaeological discoveries rewrote the history of the region. Also, before the discovery of the Tel Dan stele (the Mesha stele may also mention Judah, but the reconstruction is questionable)And all he can tell us is that Judah didn't get mentioned much. That doesn't change the fact that there were people living there. The place was just a minor backwater.The whole argument is worthless - because you can't argue that people don't exist just by arguing over whether they formed a kingdom or not. But if Judah was predominantly settled by people of the same culture as Israel and if the people swelling their ranks in the 8th Century were largely Israelite refugees what does it matter if there were no kings in earlier times ? (Not the Finkelstein and Silberman even argue for that, holding that the Biblical kings of Judah did exist)