Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   biblical archaeology
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 61 of 128 (61885)
10-21-2003 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Trump won
10-21-2003 12:02 AM


I agree with Ned, Chris. This thread would become much too difficult to follow if everyone was talking about a separate claim on your site. Please pick one at a time to discuss. Please refer to forum rule #9 concerning focus.
Thank you
------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Trump won, posted 10-21-2003 12:02 AM Trump won has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 62 of 128 (61900)
10-21-2003 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Trump won
10-21-2003 12:02 AM


Hi Chris,
Since we were discussing the date of the Exodus I only looked at the area of the link that covers this topic.
The essay is actually of very poor quality with unsupported assertaions such as:
This more familiar name was then used retrospectively by later scribes when copying the Biblical texts.
The author gives no evidence as to how this conclusion is arrived at.
Why would the scribes not simply have used the name of the area that they actually worked in, after all, the accounts were supposed to be written by Moses who was meant to be there?
It is possible that Prof. Bietak may have, for the first time, found physical evidence for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt.)sic)
We don't know if it is possible since the author hasn't informed us what Bietak has found.
It is highly possible that this is the first material evidence of Israelites in Egypt. It is the right culture in the right place at the right time.
What exactly is it that convinces this guy that this is the right culture? Was it becasue they had enclosures for animals and there were remains of sand brick houses? Your author needs to support how these are a specificlly Israelite phenomenon and not simply a common material culture. Your author really doesn't inform us as to how we would go about identifying Israelite material culture.
He also uses very outdated information:
The most striking aspect of the house is that the floor plan is identical to the Israelite "four-room house" of the later Iron Age in Palestine (Holladay 1992a).
At one time the 'four-roomed' house was taken as being purely an Israelite construction. However, your author shows ignorance of the latest research when he fails to inform his readers that 'four-roomed' houses have been discovered all over syria-palestine, it is no longer taken as evidence of Israelite settlement.
Your author also shows poor choice of references when he uses Rohl as a source, no decent university would entertain Rohl's garbage.
The evidence seems to support this hypothesis. We must assume that Tomb 1 was that of the occupant of the villa, and thus possibly of Joseph himself. The Bible is very specific as to what became of Joseph's body.
Again this is total and utter guesswork, it could be Joseph! For that matter it could be anyone! What evidence, other than the Bible, does he use?
So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt."
Wow, an emblamed body in a coffin in Egypt, hold the front page! Gimme a break will you, have you any idea how many people were embalmed and put in a coffin in Egypt?
Was the statue broken at the time the bones were removed, or was that done at another time? Archaeology cannot tell us the answer; we can only speculate.
Well speculation is all well and good, but how about some real evidence for once? Did they date the find at all, did they date the bones, why is this information not presented to the reader?
It is likely that the statue was broken during a time of political turmoil (Bietak 1996: 21),
Why was it likely, where the supporting evidence for this claim?
). Perhaps the Hyksos destroyed the statue when they overthrew local Egyptian authority.
'Perhaps', Perhaps may be good enough for this desparate Chrsitan writer, but for any semi serious historian this claim is laughable. it is pure conjecture, there is nothing presented to support this event happening when the author wants it to.
The author actually almost slips into a piece of honesty next when he says:
Without identifying inscriptions, we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites. Contemporary references to Jacob's 12 sons have not been found.
Ok, he says that we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites, so we will just say that they are because it supports our pet theory, to hell with decent evidence, circumstantial will do for us as long as we can support our fairytale in some way, oh and since our audience are uninformed desparate people they will swallow any garbage we present them with.
You need ot be a bit more critical of your sources, prro-Christian 'biblical archaeology' websites, are ALL full of unsuported assertions, poor research and, in some cases, blatant lies.
This much we can say about the discoveries in Rameses. The finds represent exactly what we would expect to find from Israelite occupation in Egypt.
This is wild. He forgets to mention what we expect to find in rameses that hasn't been found! Namely, any material culture that can be positively identifed with the 'Israelites'. Or evidence of two or trhee million people just getting up and wandering off at the same time.
The site seems to present 1450 as the date of the Exodus, are you willing to go with that date and forget the 1290 BCE date?
Brian.
The author appears to be writing for a very poorly informed audience, this essay is really not much better than a high school investigation.
Jacob and his family arrived in Egypt around 1880 BC, based on an Exodus date of ca. 1450 BC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Trump won, posted 10-21-2003 12:02 AM Trump won has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 63 of 128 (62106)
10-22-2003 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Amlodhi
10-09-2003 8:07 PM


Hi,
I think that your 'archaeology confirms the Bible' friends are having severe problems in upholding their position.
This is fine of course, but it does beg the question of why these people, as well as others, state categorically that their position is correct yet show a complete ignorance of the subject!
I think that they would be well advised to start including 'clauses' such as 'as far as I know' or 'it looks as if', or 'I know of no cases where archaeology contradicts the Bible', I would accept this without any problem.
However, the Bible believers who make such absolute claims in regard to archaeology and the Bible simply show signs of indoctrination and blind faith.
Perhaps a good idea would be for one of us to play the part of a maximalist 'biblical archaeologist' maybe then we would get some quality discussion?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Amlodhi, posted 10-09-2003 8:07 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Amlodhi, posted 10-22-2003 1:38 PM Brian has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 128 (62144)
10-22-2003 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Brian
10-22-2003 8:54 AM


Hi Brian,
quote:
Originally posted by Brian
I think that your 'archaeology confirms the Bible' friends are having severe problems in upholding their position.
Actually, I would like to think of these people as friends. I have no interest in attacking anyone's personal religious sentiments.
But you are right, of course. There has certainly been very little of substance offered in support of the initial blanket assertions of overwhelming archaeological confirmation of the biblical text.
quote:
Brian:
This is fine of course, but it does beg the question of why these people, as well as others, state categorically that their position is correct yet show a complete ignorance of the subject!
The answer to this most likely involves religious presupposition. This would also explain the resentful tone exhibited in some of the replies. IOW, any apologist unfamiliar with the evidence is constrained, by default, to argue from a position of religious presupposition. Therefore, any disagreement with their position is perceived as a personal attack against their religious sentiments.
quote:
Brian
Perhaps a good idea would be for one of us to play the part of a maximalist 'biblical archaeologist' maybe then we would get some quality discussion?
I originally started this thread, at the suggestion of IrishRockhound, hoping that it could be a group effort to accumulate and present as much relevant data as possible concerning specific archaeological finds. It was my thoughts that no consensus need be reached but, rather, that each person would then be better able to make an educated evaluation of the alleged confirming evidence.
As to ambiguous areas involving subjective interpretation, your idea of someone presenting the maximalist position is an interesting thought. I think it would be a difficult thing to pull off though if one's heart were not really in it.
We may yet have some interesting discussion even it there is no serious counter-debate. Maybe messenjaH will soon decide on a suitable exodus date and we can begin to examine some the particulars surrounding this alleged event.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Brian, posted 10-22-2003 8:54 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 65 of 128 (62725)
10-25-2003 11:59 AM


From another thread:
Messenjah:
Wait, If one date is wrong and one is right then how would the bible be in error?
Well if one verse is wrong and the other right then the one that is wrong is proven wrong, hence there is an error in the Bible.
Let's break it down. 1 Kings 61: arrives ta date of around 1440 BCE, then Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Israelites built the cities of Rameses and Pithom.
There was no Pharaoh called Rameses until c. 1304 BCE, thus the 1 Kings reference is in error.
However, if the 1 Kings reference is correct, then the Israelite would be settled in Canaan fron about one hundred years before there ever was a pharaoh called Rameses.
One of these references is incorrect, therefore the Bible is an erroneous document. This is just a very small problem with the primary history, we haven't even looked at specific archaeological evidence, and we havent even looked at the different verions of thesemyths in different versions of the Hebrew Bible.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Trump won, posted 10-25-2003 12:04 PM Brian has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 66 of 128 (62730)
10-25-2003 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Brian
10-25-2003 11:59 AM


I gotta go, I'll stay in because I'm interested.
Cya
[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 10-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Brian, posted 10-25-2003 11:59 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Brian, posted 10-25-2003 12:08 PM Trump won has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 67 of 128 (62732)
10-25-2003 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Trump won
10-25-2003 12:04 PM


Hi,
What do you expect here Chris, for us to review and reply to every single claim on this website?
Be reasonable and highlight what you think are the best arguments from this site.
It would take weeks and weeks to answer every single claim made there
Also, the fact that Bryant Wood writes some articles for that site should alert you to how poorly researched it will be.
So pick one at a time, put it into your own words and post it, then we will discuss it.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Trump won, posted 10-25-2003 12:04 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Trump won, posted 10-25-2003 9:36 PM Brian has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 68 of 128 (62845)
10-25-2003 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Brian
10-25-2003 12:08 PM


Sorry for that, didn't realize I already posted that link. I'm not to sure maybe forget about it for now because were in the middle of the exodus discussion? Again sorry.
------------------
-chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Brian, posted 10-25-2003 12:08 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Brian, posted 11-20-2003 4:44 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 69 of 128 (68060)
11-20-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Trump won
10-25-2003 9:36 PM


His essay can be found here ISRAELITES IN EGYPT - Is there evidence that the Israelites once lived in Egypt as the Bible says? And has Joseph's original tomb been found? - ChristianAnswers.Net
I will put Wood’s words in italics and mine in normal type.
The Bible tells us that when Jacob and his family migrated from Asia to Egypt, they were settled in "the land of Rameses" and that they became property owners there (Genesis 47:11, 27). Eventually, the Israelites were used as slave laborers to build the city of Rameses (Exodus 1:11), and when they left after 430 years (Exodus 12:40), they departed from Rameses (Exodus 12:37). From these references, we can conclude that the Israelites spent the years of the Egyptian Sojourn in and around Rameses.
Although this is the biblical account, it is pure folklore as it does not reflect what we know from the archaeological record.
Notice that Wood has jumped from ‘Jacob and his family’ settling in the ‘Land of Rameses’ to ‘eventually the Israelites’, this is significant because although Canaanites are attested to in the eastern Delta in the 19th c BCE, there is nothing at all in Egypt at that time, or indeed for a thousand years after that time, that can be identified with the ‘Israelites’. In fact, if we even look at the known Israelite settlements in the hill country of Palestine at the Late Bronze/early Iron Age, there is nothing at all to suggest that the inhabitants had any contact with Egypt. If it wasn’t for the Hebrew Bible no one would even suspect that the Israelites had ever been in Egypt.
Also here, woods has failed to support the use of slave labour to build the city of Rameses, and another howler is the reference to the 430 years in Egypt, even the Bible cannot agree on that one. Of course Wood is only intent on supporting the Bible, the actual archaeological data is not allowed to get in the way of that. Why does he say they were in Egypt for 430 years, because the Bible says so, is there external evidence to support this, of course not.
The 430 years is a bit of a headache for the Bible believer because of conflicting information from the Bible itself.
To begin with, there’s the problem of which Bible account to use, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint actually say that the enslavement in Egypt was 215 years, (Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times, JSOT, Sheffield, 1990, p 35) so which account should we take as being the accurate one?
As well as the problem of which version to use we also have the internal inconsistencies to deal with. Let’s say that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, is this consistent with the other information in the text?
Exodus 12:40
Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.
There’s obviously an inconsistency between the 430 years in Egypt, and the genealogy in Exodus 6.14-25, which claims only four generations from Levi to Moses. Although the number of generations is consistent with Genesis 15:16 ‘In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.’ There is the added problem of Genesis 15:13 ‘Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years . These two verses support a generation lasting for 100 years; surely this is incorrect, a generation is nowhere near 100 years.
It really doesn’t seem credible at all. Look at the headaches here; we have four generations (Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses, and even with the suspiciously high lifespans given to Levi (137 years), Kohath (Masoretic Text & Samaritan Pentateuch: 133 years; LXX (Septuagint): 130 years), and Amram (MT: 137 years; SP, LXX Alexandricus: 136 years; LXX Vatanicus: 132 years) this genealogy is in no way compatible with a 430-year stay in Egypt.
It gets worse, according to Exodus 7.7 Moses was 80 years old when he first confronted Pharaoh, and since this is supposed to have happened during the final year of Israel's stay in Egypt there are 350 (430 - 80) years remaining to be accounted for over three generations. If we assume that Joseph was 39 or 40 when Jacob entered Egypt. Levi must evidently have been over 40 on that occasion, which means that 40 + years of Levi's age of begetting elapsed before the entry into Egypt. The genealogy in Exodus 6 cannot therefore be reconciled with P's chronology unless one is prepared to assume that Levi, Kohath, and Amram fathered their respective children at an average age of 130 years (3 x 130-40 = 350). The discrepancy between years and generations is made even worse if one takes account of the fact that Genesis 46.11 includes Kohath among the children of Israel who originally entered Egypt; ‘this leaves us with only two generations spanning 350 years, which is impossible on any set of calculations’ ( Hughes note 20, page 35 ).
Therefore, the opening passage of Wood’s essay is little more that an unsupported folk tale. He then goes on:
The name Rameses actually comes from a later period than the Israelite Sojourn. It was the name given to a city built by Rameses the Great (Rameses II) in the eastern Nile Delta in the 13th century BC. This more familiar name was then used retrospectively by later scribes when copying the Biblical texts. Although the location of Rameses was in dispute for some years, that dispute has now been settled. We not only know where Rameses was located, but we know much about the history of the ancient site.
So basically Wood is saying that the Israelites did not build the city of Rameses, he says that we know for certain where Rameses is but it wasn’t called Rameses, this is an anachronism. So the Israelites then must have built another great city, one which hasn’t been identified yet, and what do the scribes do according to Wood? They change the name of the real city that the Israelites built, they alter God’s word, amazing the lengths that some people go to, in order to maintain a fairytale.
Since 1966, extensive excavations have been undertaken there under the direction of Manfred Bietak of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo (for previous reports, see Shea 1990: 100-103; Wood 1991: 104-106; Aling 1996: 20-21). It is possible that Prof. Bietak may have, for the first time, found physical evidence for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt.
It is possible, but totally unsupported by any credible evidence by Wood, and certainly not claimed by Bietak. As I said, I am familiar with Bietak’s work and have a few of his books here, two if which are mentioned by Wood, and both are mutilated by him.
Ancient Rameses is located at Tell el-Dab‘a in the eastern Delta, approximately 100 km northeast of Cairo. In antiquity, the Pelusiac branch of the Nile flowed past the site, giving access to the Mediterranean. In addition, the town lay on the land route to Canaan, the famous Horus Road. Thus, it was an important commercial and military center.
Pretty basic stuff and about the only piece of the article that is accurate.
Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.
We can divide the history of the site into three periods: pre-Hyksos, Hyksos and post-Hyksos. The Hyksos were a Semitic people from Syria-Palestine, who took up residence in the eastern Nile Delta and eventually ruled northern Egypt for some 108 years, ca. 1663-1555 BC (15th Dynasty).[1] Jacob and his family arrived in Egypt around 1880 BC, based on an Exodus date of ca. 1450 BC. That was in the pre-Hyksos period when the name of the town was Rowaty, "the door of the two roads" (Bietak 1996: 9,19).
Again, this is full of pure speculation, Wood is simply taking his dating from the Bible text when he claims that Jacob arrived in Egypt, and he is about the only scholar who maintains this date, being a fundamentalist of course means that he has to.
The earliest evidence for Asiatics at Rowaty (the city that later named Rameses) occurs in the late 12th Dynasty (mid 19th century BC). [3] At that time a rural settlement was founded. It was unfortified, although there were many enclosure walls, most likely for keeping animals. The living quarters consisted of rectangular huts built of sand bricks (Bietak 1986: 237; 1991b: 32). It is highly possible that this is the first material evidence of Israelites in Egypt. It is the right culture in the right place at the right time.
This is highly amusing, is Wood saying that rectangular buildings built of sand bricks is material evidence of Israelites in Egypt? The right culture at the right time, this is unbelievable, he has given no indication of how to separate Israelite culture from any other culture of the time and he expects his audience to swallow that?
Actually, to appreciate the quality of Wood’s scholarship we really need to look at the sources he uses and we can also see how he blatantly ignores the evidence and deliberately misleads his readers. He references Bietak 1991b as support for living quarters which he boldly announces as evidence of Israelite inhabitancy and believes it is ‘the right culture in the right place’. Let’s have a look at the actual article by Bietak, here is page 32 in its entirety:
‘Area F/I rectangular houses of sandy mudbrick were built within enclosed areas. Among the buildings, a Syrian "Mittelsaal" house (cf. Heinrich 1972 1975: 206-7; Eigner 1985) and a "Breitraum" house (Eigner 1985) give an indication of the origin of the inhabitants. South of the "Mittelsaal" house is a small cemetery, and still further south is a larger cemetery. Nearly all the tombs, with their brick chambers and vaulting techniques, are Egyptian types known from the time of the Middle Kingdom. Within that stratum, and contrary to the later custom of amphora burial, small children were buried in small chambers of sandy mudbrick, generally in amphorae. Burial customs such as the contracted position of bodies, donkey sacrifices, and the bronzes (especially weaponry) found in the tombs again betray the Asiatic origin of the inhabitants. The eastern part of this fast-growing settlement consisted largely of open compounds enclosed within walls of light yellow, sandy bricks. It is very likely that the compounds were used for keeping animals. Some more substantial foundations have also been found. However, no tombs were dug in this marginal zone of the settlement.
The material culture of the settlement was largely Egyptian. Only 18 to 20 percent of the pottery belongs to MB IIA types. The Egyptian ceramic materials evince late 12th Dynasty types. Very characteristic are the round-bottomed drinking cups which, with an average index of 150, vary only slightly from those of the later Stratum d/l (see fig. 14; compare Arnold 1988: figs. 65, 75, table 8; Bietak 1984a: 480-82, ill. 2; 1985a; I989a: fig. 3). The shapes, however, are still open and their size is often larger. Typical for the period is the high’
Bietak clearly gives the origin of the inhabitants (the Mittelsaal and Breitraum are N. Syrian) of these living quarters, and they are not linked in anyway to what later became Israelites, Wood makes no attempt to prove that there is a link, why did Wood do this? Another problem here is the fact that Bietak never attributes anything to the Israelites, he accounts for everything he finds, it is a very detailed article, and not a single fragment is ever credited to Israelites, yet Wood just barges along mutilating and ignoring Bietak’s work, it is criminal. If Wood, or anyone else wants to claim that these are early Israelites then they need to start providing evidence that the Canaanite element of Tell el Dab’a were related in some way to the later Israelites. Until then, they really need to stop making these unjustified claims.
Not all residents of the first Asiatic settlement at Tell el-Dab‘a lived in huts. One of them, evidently an important official, lived in a small villa. The Bible tells us that Joseph became a high official after he correctly interpreted pharaoh's dreams (Genesis 41:39-45). We are not told where Joseph lived while serving in the Egyptian bureaucracy. It seems logical to assume, however, that after discharging his duties associated with the famine, he would have moved to Rameses to be near his father and brothers.
Look at Wood’s logic here, it is astounding! There was a residence for an important official, the Bible says Joseph was an important official, therefore the villa is Joseph! This isn’t archaeology, this is The Brothers Grimm. The villa could belong to absolutely anyone, Wood presents no evidence that it was Joseph, he is clutching at desperate straws.
Could this villa have been Joseph's house?
The villa was 10 x 12 meters in size, situated on one side of an enclosure measuring 12 x 19 meters. It consisted of six rooms laid out in horseshoe fashion around an open courtyard. The most striking aspect of the house is that the floor plan is identical to the Israelite "four-room house" of the later Iron Age in Palestine (Holladay 1992a). In this type of house two side rooms and a back room were arranged around a central space, or courtyard.
This is scholarly research at its poorest, the ‘four-roomed house’ as an identification of Israelite culture has been rejected for about ten years, it is no longer accepted by Syro-Palestinian archaeologists as purely exclusive to the Israelites, many example have been found in sites totally unrelated to the Israelites.
In fact, it was a lot longer than ten years ago that people had their doubts about identifying the four-roomed house as exclusively Israelite.
In Biblical Archaeology by Shalom M Paul and William Dever Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem 1973, wrote that:
‘The ‘Israelite House’ appears first as a homogenous structure in the Early Iron Age (12th c BCE). In general it is a house which has an inner open courtyard with a porch and two rectangular rooms. Such houses were discovered in tell Qasila and tell Jamma. In the 10th century the so-called ‘Israelite House’ became crystallised.
The Origin of the ‘Israelite House’ is uncertain. It is still unclear if it is of Phoenician origin, of later Canaanite tradition brought by the Sea Peoples, or an independent Israelite invasion.’
So we can see that even 30 years ago people had their doubts and coming a bit forward in time we see Israel Finkelstien’s treatment of the term in The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement Israel Exploration Society 1988)
‘Groups with similar social conditions - even if differing in geography and date - were likely to have arrived at similar architectural solutions, while groups in dissimilar social situations - even if adjacent and contemporary - were likely to have developed dissimilar building sites’ (page 238)
The four-roomed house is no longer designated as an Israelite ‘type’, similar structures have been found all over the near east, and in areas that were certainly not Israelite. Let’s have a look at what BARev’s guru Hershel Shanks has to say on the subject of four-roomed houses and the Israelites:
Shanks gives a description of what a four roomed house is and then goes on to say that Larry Stager ‘prefers to call then pillared houses. That’s probably more accurate, but the four room moniker has stuck. And that’s the common name for them. AT one time, the four roomed house was considered a peculiarly Israelite style of architecture, bet we will soon see that this is not necessarily true () (Shanks, The Rise of Ancient Israel, p. 10, Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington 1991).
From page 12: For example, some of these four-roomed houses have been found outside the areas supposedly settled by the Israelites, including sites east of the Jordan. Moreover, antecedents of this architecture can be found among the earlier Canaanites (emphasis mine).
Why anyone is still using the four-roomed house to specifically identify Israelite occupancy is beyond me, it is simply very poor academic work to keep claiming this, and I don’t believe for a minute that Wood is unaware of the situation, but it does weaken his myth so he sweeps it under the carpet.
What else has he got?
Nearby, arranged in a semi-circle around the villa, were poorer two-roomed homes, approximately 6 x 8 meters in size. If the villa was the home of Joseph, then the surrounding huts might have been those of Joseph's father and brothers. Approximately 20% of the pottery found in the settlement debris was of Palestinian Middle Bronze Age type (Bietak 1996: 10).
There should be a new paragraph after ‘brothers’ here, as well as being a different point that Wood is making, he also gives the impression that the whole paragraph is taken from Bietak when in fact only the ‘Approximately 20% of the pottery found in the settlement debris was of Palestinian Middle Bronze Age type’ is Bietak’s.
This is also misquoted, it should read: ‘Only 20% of the pottery from the settlement debris was of Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze Age type.’
It is interesting that Wood mutilates Bietak again here, by deliberately leaving out the word ‘Syro’ from Bietak’s quote he gives the impression that the 20% pottery is all from Palestine, which is incorrect, and again is sloppy scholarship.
In the open spaces southwest of the villa was the cemetery of the settlement. Here, some of the most startling evidence was found.
You just know that this is going to be nonsense don’t you?
Anyway:
The tombs were constructed of mud bricks in Egyptian fashion, but the contents were strictly Asiatic. Although they had been thoroughly plundered, 50% of the male burials still had weapons of Palestinian type in them.
Again Wood deliberately misquotes Bietak, he again leaves out the ‘Syro’ and goes with a straightforward single word ‘Palestinian’, Bietak uses Syro-Palestinian in his book where Wood quotes him.
Typically, the deceased males were equipped with two javelins, battle-axes and daggers. Tomb 8 contained a fine example of a duckbill-ax and an embossed belt of bronze (Bietak 1996: 14).
This is reading more and more like a von Daniken novel, Wood has obviously read the material written by Bietak, but he simply ignores the evidence that Bietak gives to explain to the reader what he found. Again, I am going to quote Bietak and give his explanation for the weapons:
From the top of page 14:
‘thoroughly plundered, 50 per cent of the male burials yielded weapons of Syro-Palestinian (emph mine) Middle Bronze Age type (Figs 10-11; Plates 1, B and 2, A-D). It is very likely that most of the male population at this time worked as soldiers for the Egyptian crown.
The use of foreigners as soldiers was an old tradition in ancient Egypt, going back at least to the time of the Old Kingdom. Soldiers of Asiatic and Nubian origin were also in service during the First Intermediate Period assisting in the unification attempts by various monarchs and by the kings of the 10th and 11th Dynasties. Tomb-scenes at Beni Hasan indicate that, by the early 12th Dynasty, people from Canaan, most likely nomads who had entered Egypt via the Nile Delta, were being similarly employed (Fig. 12, A-C). These representations show that they carried their own native weaponry. The same is true for the warriors at Tell el-Dab’a. As a rule they were equipped with two javelins, battle-axes and daggers. Most of the tombs were plundered and few bronze implements escaped the attention of the thieves. However, because of the restricted size of the burial chambers, the javelin heads were often hidden by the bricks blocking the chamber and remained in situ, while the other tomb equipment was taken away. One tomb, however, already cited above, yielded a wonderful example of a duckbill-axe and an embossed belt of bronze (Fig. 11; Plate 2, A-B).
There really is nothing exceptional about this find at all. Wood would like us to believe that the references to Palestinian culture supports Joseph and his father’s clans in Egypt. He conveniently leaves out the Syrian culture from his evidence as it undermines it and leaves out the fact that it wasn’t at all unusual for foreigners to be used as soldiers in ancient Egypt; they even used their native weaponry. This betrays the peaceful nomadic shepherd type that Jacob is portrayed as in the Bible, so good old Woody just leaves it out!
One of the tombs, however, was totally unique and unlike anything ever found in Egypt...
At the southwest end of the burial area, some 83 meters from the villa compound, was a monumental tomb, Tomb 1. It was composed of a nearly square superstructure containing the main burial chamber, and a chapel annex. In a robbers' pit sunk into the chapel, excavators found fragments of a colossal statue depicting an Asiatic dignitary. The likeness was of a seated official 1 times life size. It was made of limestone and exhibited excellent workmanship. The skin was yellow, the traditional color of Asiatics in Egyptian art. It had a mushroom-shaped hairstyle, painted red, typical of that shown in Egyptian artwork for Asiatics. A throwstick, the Egyptian hieroglyph for a foreigner, was held against the right shoulder. The statue had been intentionally smashed and defaced (Bietak 1996: 20-21).
This is so unique of course that there is a similar figure in existence that was referenced on that very same page by Bietak I quote A similar figure is known however, from, the palace of Ebla, dating approximately to the same period (eighteenth century BC) It was made in a much cruder fashion, but once again it is a seated statue of a dignitary with a throwstick held against his shoulder. (Bietak 1996 page 20.)
WOW maybe this is Joseph too, he got around didn’t he!
I refuse to comment on David Rohl, when anyone has to rely on Rohl then you just know they haven’t a clue. I will, however, have to comment on this little gem from him:
We must assume that Tomb 1 was that of the occupant of the villa, and thus possibly of Joseph himself. The Bible is very specific as to what became of Joseph's body.
This is a big assumption and one that Bietak doesn’t support. How wood can use Bietak as a source then ignore almost everything he says is astounding. Bietak says that ‘it is unclear whether the tomb belonged to the Mittelsaahaus, which could be considered a predecessor of the palace of the early 13th Dynasty in the stratum above, or whether it belonged to this palace (page 21).
So there is no way to ascertain if the tomb belonged to the ‘villa’ occupier, but that doesn’t stop these guys claiming it as if it was proven. It pains me that a subject I love so much is abused in this way.
In the next phase of occupation, [8] the humble dwellings of were covered over and a huge palace complex constructed. It is obvious that the newcomers, although Asiatic, were different from those in the previous period. [9]
Without identifying inscriptions, we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites.
Yes, and not a single thing has been found, but let’s keep the myth going meantime by presenting severely flawed essays, let us mislead people by leaving out important data and let us simply present anything we want without support, Bible believers will be happy to blindly accept Wood’s work without question, it keeps their little fantasy world safe.
Finally:
This much we can say about the discoveries in Rameses. The finds represent exactly what we would expect to find from Israelite occupation in Egypt.
Amazing, he has presented absolutely nothing at all to support this then claims he has. What represents exactly what we would expect to find from Israelite occupation in Egypt:
Let’s look over what he claims:
The sand brick buildings, which are purely Syrian in origin:
A villa for an official, wow at a settlement they had a villa for an important dignitary, what do you expect to find?
No distinctly ‘Israelite’ culture at all
The four roomed house, which is found all over the Near east and not peculiar to the Israelites.
Not a single shred of evidence from contemporary literature.
A ‘unique’ statue, which happens to have a similar contemporary likeness in Ebla.
A missing body from a tomb!
Palestinian weapons, which of course should be Syrian and Palestinian weapons that are routinely found anyway, they are not unusual as these foreign soldiers fighting for Egypt always used their native weaponry.
Wood then even betrays his own poor scholarship when he lapses accidentally into a piece of honesty:
Without identifying inscriptions, we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites. [11] Contemporary references to Jacob's 12 sons have not been found.
Exactly, but let us give people false hopes in the meantime, let us present ‘evidence’ in a way that it looks like these things have been verified.
I hope this benefits you in some way Chris. You should take from this the fact that just because it is published in a book or on a website doesn’t mean that it is true. You cannot take anything for granted and should investigate things as thoroughly as possible, look at as many different angels as you possibly can.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Trump won, posted 10-25-2003 9:36 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Jackie
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 128 (272902)
12-26-2005 4:38 PM


Hi
The topic being "biblical archaeology", of which I have no comment to the information posted, was posted for the soul purpose of investigating the authenticity of said posts, which I cannot do.
Royal Seal Unearthed in City of David
12:48 Aug 02, '05 / 26 Tammuz 5765
The Old Testament may seem like an unlikely source from which to draw inspiration for a modern-day climatology study. But a story from the book of Genesis ” in which Joseph predicts seven years of abundant crops, followed by seven years of famine for Egypt ” drove researchers to scour centuries of water-level data for the Nile River to determine if such a cycle actually exists, and if so, what causes it.
http://www.geotimes.org/current/NN_Nilerecord.html
Analysis of the data, published in the May 24 Geophysical Research Letters, turns up evidence for a seven-year cycle that researchers say may be influenced by the North Atlantic ocean.
Not Found - The New York Times
King David's fabled palace: Is this it?
By Steven Erlanger The New York Times
FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 2005
JERUSALEM An Israeli archeologist says she has uncovered in east Jerusalem what she believes may be the fabled palace of the biblical King David. Her work has been sponsored by the Shalem Center, a neoconservative think tank in Jerusalem, and funded by a American Jewish investment banker who would like to help provide scientific support for the Bible as a reflection of Jewish history.
Ancient Hebrew Root Word Study, for God,
This is an explanation I have never heard before.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/3_god.html
Picture: The head of a bull
Here are some supposedly confirmed Biblical structures
Gibeon pool (at el-Jib)
Hezekiah's tunnel under Jerusalem
Jericho's walls
Critics claim they fell due to an earthquake and do not date to the time of Joshua's conquest; nonetheless, it is a remarkable coincidence that they exist at all considering that the site was stratified and unoccupied during the late period when the critics say the book of Joshua was written.
Lachish siege ramp of Sennacherib
Siloam pool (just unearthed in 2004)
Second Temple (confirmed by Western/Wailing wall constructed by Herod the Great)
19 tumuli located west of Jerusalem, undoubtedly dating to the Judean monarchy, but possibly representing sites of memorial ceremonies for the kings as mentioned in 2 Chronicles 16:14, 21:19, 32:33, and the book of Jeremiah 34:5
Merneptah stela (Egyptian reference to Israelites in the land of Canaan)
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dating of King Hezekiah's Tunnel verified by scientists
Modern radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel in Jerusalem shows that it was excavated about 700 years before the Common Era, and can thus be safely attributed to the Judean King Hezekiah. This is the first time that a structure mentioned in the Bible (Kings II 20:20; Chronicles II 32:3, 4) has been radiometrically dated.
A report on the study of the Siloam Tunnel will be published on Sept. 11 in the scientific journal Nature. The research was conducted by Dr. Amos Frumkin of the Geography Department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Dr. Aryeh Shimron of the Israel Geological Survey, and Dr. Jeff Rosenbaum of Reading University in England.
Radiometric dating is based on the decay of radioactive elements. These act as physical clocks, allowing researchers to estimate the age of the material being examined. In this case, the scientists used measurements of carbon-14 for dating organic material within the plaster of the Siloam Tunnel, as well as uranium-thorium for dating stalactites which grew in the tunnel since its construction.
February 17, 2005
Controversial Dates Of Biblical Edom Reassessed
In Results From New Archeological Research
By Barry Jagoda
University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : General
The Edomite lowlands, home to a large copper ore zone, have been ignored by archaeologists because of the logistical difficulties of working in this hyper-arid region. But with an anthropological perspective, and using high precision radiocarbon dating, this new research demonstrates two major phases of copper production”during the 12th to 11th centuries B.C. and the 10th to 9th centuries B.C. In this period evidence was found of construction of massive fortifications and industrial scale metal production activities, as well as over 100 building complexes.
Until the current discovery many scholars had said the Bible’s numerous references to ancient Israel’s interactions with Edom could not be valid.
Sep. 27, 2005 23:01 | Updated Sep. 28, 2005 1:31
First Temple-era seal discovered
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS
A First-Temple period seal has been discovered amidst piles of rubble from Jerusalem's Temple Mount, an Israeli archaeologist said Tuesday, in what could prove to be an historic find.
The small - less than 1 cm - seal impression, or bulla, discovered Tuesday by Bar-Ilan University archaeologist Dr. Gabriel Barkay amidst piles of rubble from the Temple Mount would mark the first time that an written artifact was found from the Temple Mount dating back to the First Temple period.
The 2,600 year old artifact, with three lines in ancient Hebrew, was discovered amidst piles of rubble discarded by the Islamic Wakf that Barkay and a team of young archaeologists and volunteers are sifting
through on the grounds of a Jerusalem national park.
The seal, which predates the destruction of the First Jewish temple in 586 BCE, was presented Tuesday night to the press at an archaeological conference at the City of David sponsored by the right-wing Elad organization.
Barkay said that the find was the first of its kind from the time of King David.
Archaeologists find evidence of "Goliath" in earliest Philistine artifacts
By Associated Press November 11, 2005
Archaeologists digging at the purported biblical home of Goliath have unearthed a shard of pottery bearing an inscription of the Philistine's name, a find they claim lends historical credence to the Bible's tale of David's battle with Goliath.
While the discovery is not definitive evidence of Goliath's existence, it does support the Bible's depiction of life at the time the battle was supposed to have occurred, said Dr. Aren Maeir, a professor at Bar-Ilan University and director of the excavation.
Pittsburgh professor's team unearths earliest alphabet yet found
By Allison M. Heinrichs
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, November 10, 2005
An ancient stone found by a team led by a Pittsburgh professor contains the earliest alphabet ever discovered, but it may not be enough to settle a hot debate among biblical scholars.
Ron Tappy, a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary in Highland Park, announced Wednesday that an excavation that he led in Israel this summer unearthed a complete alphabet inscribed on a stone set inside a building.
The building, which dates to the 10th century B.C., is in an Israeli archeological site called Tel Zayit, about 35 miles southwest of Jerusalem. It would have been on the outskirts of ancient Judah.
For years, scholars have debated whether the kingdoms of David and Solomon, who the Bible says reigned about the 10th century B.C., were as advanced as the Bible describes them.
image,
History News and Articles - Archaeological Discoveries
PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Two lines of an alphabet have been found inscribed in a stone in Israel, offering what some scholars say is the most solid evidence yet that the ancient Israelites were literate as early as the 10th century B.C.
"In the debate over the Bible as history, many skeptics have argued that it must have been transmitted primarily as an oral history, because the Israelites were largely illiterate.Proponents of a written biblical history see this find as validating their contentions that the Israelites could have written down biblical stories."This is a great discovery because it embarrasses the h*** out of the skeptics," said Dr. Dever, who argued for the proponents in a controversial 2001 book titled "What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?"
Jehoash tablet said found near Muslim cemetery
By Nadav Shragai
The inscription attributed to King Jehoash whose discovery was announced earlier this week was reportedly found near Jerusalem's Muslim cemetery, outside the eastern wall of the Temple Mount, not far from Golden Gate, according to information obtained by Ha'aretz.
Jehoash ruled in Jerusalem at the end of the ninth century B.C.E. The inscription has been authenticated by the National Infrastructure Ministry's Geological Survey of Israel
Her quest began with an essay she wrote for a 1997 edition of the Biblical Archaeology Review. Mazar stated that a "careful examination of the Biblical text combined with sometimes unnoticed results of modern archaeological excavations in Jerusalem enable us, I believe, to locate the site of King David's palace."
She essentially drew a map to the palace using the Bible and two nearby excavations carried out by the British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon and the Israeli archeologist Yigal Shilo, who was once her mentor. Digging in the 1960s, Kenyon found massive stone walls near a rough-hewn, stepped structure running up the side of the valley. On the valley floor, Kenyon uncovered Phoenician capitals -- the tops of columns -- that suggested a monumental building may have stood above.
David's palace, according to the Bible, was built by workers sent to him by the Phoenician king, Hiram of Tyre. Mazar also used passages from the Books of Samuel to trace David's steps to a site adjacent to Kenyon's excavation
Some archaeologists believe Jerusalem was no more than a tiny hilltop village when it served as David's capital. The discovery of a palace or other large public building from David's time would strengthen the opposing view that he and his son, Solomon, presided over a civilization grander than the collection of rural clans some historians say made up the Jewish kingdom.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../12/01/AR2005120101944.html
A Dig Into Jerusalem's Past Fuels Present-Day Debates
This message has been edited by Jackie, 12-26-2005 07:13 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by AdminJar, posted 12-26-2005 6:59 PM Jackie has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 128 (272971)
12-26-2005 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Jackie
12-26-2005 4:38 PM


Not a way to debate
Simply cut & pasting a bunch of stuff from other sites is not considered a valid way to discuss things here. We debate and discuss with others and not with newsreports or other boards.
Please edit your post to explain the significance, if any, of the material. You can provide links to your sources but do not just cut & paste the material.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • Message 1

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by Jackie, posted 12-26-2005 4:38 PM Jackie has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2006 7:48 PM AdminJar has not replied

      
    Jackie
    Inactive Member


    Message 72 of 128 (272987)
    12-26-2005 7:16 PM


    The topic being "biblical archaeology", of which I have no comment to the information posted, was posted for the soul purpose of investigating the authenticity of said posts, which I cannot do with out help, of someone more knowledgeable.
    I thought it would help of we had the information set before us to review.
    I will work on it.
    Was there anything posted that you would like to comment on?
    This message has been edited by Jackie, 12-26-2005 07:27 PM

      
    Jackie
    Inactive Member


    Message 73 of 128 (276350)
    01-06-2006 10:56 AM


    Hello I'm back, here is one of the latest, discoveries,
    Also did anyone watch a program on recently by historian Nigel Spivey?
    The conclusion reached was that archeology now does more to support the narrative of the gospel accounts than contradict them.
    JERUSALEM - Discovery of an ancient village just outside Jerusalem has brought into question one of the strongest images of biblical times ” the wholesale flight of Jews running for their lives after the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
    http://news.yahoo.com/.../ap_on_sc/israel_mysterious_village
    And this,
    Artifacts with links to Bible unearthed
    Artifacts with links to Bible unearthed - Washington Times
    I found this particularly interesting,
    Among the unusual finds extracted by Bar-Ilan University's Gabriel Barkai and his team of students and volunteers is a "bulla," or seal impression, thought to be used to close cloth sacks of silver.
    "It bears the name Gedalyahu Ben Immer Ha-Cohen, suggesting that the owner may have been a brother of Pashur Ben Immer, described in the Bible [Jeremiah 20:1] as a priest and temple official," Mr. Barkai said.
    That verse says: "Pashur, the son of Immer the priest, who was also chief governor in the House of the Lord, heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things."

    Replies to this message:
     Message 74 by PaulK, posted 01-06-2006 11:28 AM Jackie has replied
     Message 90 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2006 1:36 PM Jackie has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 74 of 128 (276359)
    01-06-2006 11:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 73 by Jackie
    01-06-2006 10:56 AM


    quote:
    Also did anyone watch a program on recently by historian Nigel Spivey?
    The conclusion reached was that archeology now does more to support the narrative of the gospel accounts than contradict them.
    I didn't see the pr0ogram but I would say the phrasing of the conclusion in itslef betrays a strong bias. Archaeology can do very little to confirm or deny the narrative parts of the Gospel. We can establish that a few important people and some places existed but that information would not be hard to come by at the time the Gospels were written.
    Consider for instance the "massacre of the innocents". If we do not discover any evidence of a the massacre itself but we hae archaeological evidence for the existence of Herod and Bethlehem should we say that the archaeology does more to confirm than deny the story ? Technically that would be correct, in that almost nothing beats nothing - but it would still be misleading to fail to mention that archaeology offers no significant evidence either way.
    Archaeology is only really useful in dealing with cases like the Book of Mormon - where the writer is relying heavily on imagination for even basic issues that archaeology can more easily address.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 73 by Jackie, posted 01-06-2006 10:56 AM Jackie has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 77 by Jackie, posted 01-06-2006 1:42 PM PaulK has not replied
     Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2006 8:26 PM PaulK has replied

      
    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 75 of 128 (276375)
    01-06-2006 12:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
    10-09-2003 8:29 PM


    Corroborating Evidence Of Exodus Found
    NosyNed writes:
    Some evidence of the exodus in the desert might be pretty cool too even thought the thread discussing that seems to make it clear that it is not likly to be found.
    Corroborating evidence of the Exodus has been found, each of the evidences corroborating the others in the region in question so as to strengthen the case for the Biblical Exodus with each of the strong corroborating positives weakening the weaker questionable negatives regarding the debate.
    Ned, your comments referring to the Exodus thread appear to be in the present tense. Is there an open Exodus thread?

    Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 10-09-2003 8:29 PM NosyNed has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-06-2006 12:21 PM Buzsaw has replied
     Message 87 by Brian, posted 01-07-2006 4:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied
     Message 116 by Jackie, posted 01-28-2006 9:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024