Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   biblical archaeology
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 31 of 128 (60737)
10-13-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coragyps
10-13-2003 2:55 PM


Hi,
I read the link as well, and the entire page is full of pure speculation, not a single academic reference on the page.
Ity is no surprise that the site sells the well-known idiot Ron Wyatt's hooky materials.
I had to have a little laugh at this:
Checking with volcanic experts around the world
I can just see these experts sitting at their desks erupting every now and then!
The site is basically a joke and shows complete and utter ignoranceof any archaeological methodology.
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 10-13-2003 2:55 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 32 of 128 (60740)
10-13-2003 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Amlodhi
10-11-2003 10:04 PM


I'd agree that some of his conclusions are very shaky. There's too much extrapolation involved, sometimes too many assumptions. However the conventional chronology seems to rest on other, different conclusions that are just as shaky.
quote:
There are several particulars I would like to eventual discuss concerning this period such as, Dr. Rohl's identification of Dadua as David, and Labayu as Saul as well as the implications of Rameses II reigning as Pharaoh during this period.
Most of the identifications seem to be little more than word-play on both sides. The bible is misleading here, I think. Would it be possible to construct a timeline of events for Egypt and Israel without referring to the bible stories? Then both accounts could be compared for similarities and perhaps matched accordingly.
As for the 'habiru' - if the term is used for a social group as opposed to an ethnic group, is it possible that it does not actually refer to the Hebrews themselves?
The Rock Hound

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Amlodhi, posted 10-11-2003 10:04 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Amlodhi, posted 10-13-2003 4:40 PM IrishRockhound has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 128 (60750)
10-13-2003 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Trump won
10-13-2003 2:02 PM


Hi messenjaH,
quote:
Originally posted by messenjaH
Despite minimalists opinions they cannot contend with the findings that do not support their theories. . . My first two links may have not been that good but the Sodom link was, at least.
Now, let's not start slinging labels about. I said in my post that I think Saul, David and Solomon were actual rulers in Judah and I state below in this post that I suspect the "cities of the plains" were factual cities. So how does that make me a biblical minimalist? Simply because I don't swallow every story that comes along? I have nothing against believing any part of the bible, but the cold, hard fact is, if one's sources and information are dubious (or worse, fraudulent), then "belief" based on that information is worthless.
Also, as far as this thread is concerned, archaeological evidence is of the essence. What one does or doesn't "believe" is irrelevant.
Always consider your sources:
This most recent example that you have presented is from a website operated by Jonathon Gray. Jonathon Gray is a Ron Wyatt supporter and the "evidence" he promotes is that which was allegedly discovered by Wyatt.
I (personally) was singularly underwhelmed by the pictures of the alleged "cities" presented in Gray's website. They look suspiciously similar to the formations, claimed by some to be cities, which are found on Mars and the moon. In addition to the fact that it takes a great deal of imagination (and overlay drawings) to see anything other than natural geologic processes in the formations, there is a distinct lack of buried finds (both cemeteries and occupational debris) that would, presumably, not have been "turned to ash".
You should be aware that any discoveries connected with Ron Wyatt are suspect in the extreme. Even the Christian "Answers In Genesis" refuses to be affiliated with him, as the following excerpt from one of their sites (linked below) shows:
[AIG] "(Ron) Wyatt claimed to have found just about every conceivable artifact of importance to the Bible. The real Red Sea crossing site, with chariot wheels; the Ark of the Covenant underneath the actual site of the Crucifixion, replete with the dried blood of Christ (complete with a misunderstanding by this fraudster of the nature of human genetics) . . . and the chromosomes, it was alleged, were seen to be still dividing! Not surprisingly, the lab that was said to have confirmed all this is mysteriously unavailable for comment. O, yes, and the real Sodom and Gomorrah, the site of Korah’s earthquake, Noah’s grave, Noah’s wife’s grave (with millions in treasure which some rascal promptly stole)even the fence from Noah’s farm, no less. To cap it off, he claimed to have the actual tablets of the Law (bound with golden links, no less) in his garage, as it were. And this is only the beginning of such amazing claimsnearly 100 in all! Not surprisingly, even after his death, none of these treasures has ever been produced."
"He (Ron Wyatt) said that he prayed at the (Noah's) ‘Ark’ site once, and God caused the ground to tear apart via an earthquake so that he, Wyatt, could see the petrified ship’s timbers. Then it closed again. . . . If one discovers, as we did, . . . that there is a trail of repeated falsehood after falsehood, public lie upon public lie, the hypothesis (that Ron Wyatt is) a godly, spiritual, latter-day prophet [or credible archaeologist {my insertion}] is easily discredited"
Remember, the above quotation is not from some "biblical minimalist" but from the Christian "Answers In Genesis" organization.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp
The actual location of Sodom is still debated. Some say it is under the southern waters of the Dead Sea in the "vale of Siddim", others maintain that the ruins of Bab edh-Dhra is the ancient Sodom. The excavations of W. F. Albright in 1924, along with subsequent excavations by Walter Rast and Thomas Schaub in 1975 have resulted in these additional, though tentative, identifications: Gomorrah - Numeira; Zeboiim - Khanazir; Admah - Feifa; Zoar - es Safi. These cities were destroyed and abandoned c. 2450 - 2350 and exhibit signs (ash and charcoal) of having been burnt.
These long established (though still tentative) sites, coupled with the possible mention of (at least) Sodom and Gomorrah in the Ebla tablets, have always made me suspect that the "cities of the plains" were factual locations. Although, again, the actual existence of these cities does not provide evidence of the biblical account of their destruction anymore than the existence of Rome provides evidence that Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves.
There are, in fact, some curious hints as to the nature of their destruction. This entire area sits atop a massive network of faults; and earthquakes are common. The area is also permeated by large deposits of petroleum and natural gas. Josephus mentions lightning in connection with his comments on the destruction of these cities.
It has therefore been considered that the shifting of these faults could cause the release of a large volume of natural gas and petroleum related substances. This phenomenon, coupled with Josephus' lightning, offers a suggestive mix of known facts capable of producing the events that were later recorded in terms of divine judgment.
Whether this conjecture proves to be true or not is yet to be seen, but the fact remains; you need to be far more critical of your sources.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Trump won, posted 10-13-2003 2:02 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Trump won, posted 10-13-2003 4:20 PM Amlodhi has not replied
 Message 37 by Brian, posted 10-13-2003 4:41 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 34 of 128 (60753)
10-13-2003 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Amlodhi
10-13-2003 4:08 PM


I never labelled you a minimalist, you obviously arent and I realize this, most people on this forum are however, I am sorry if it seemed that comment was directed at you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Amlodhi, posted 10-13-2003 4:08 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 35 of 128 (60754)
10-13-2003 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brian
10-13-2003 2:58 PM


quote:
I agree with the first part of your statement. Disproving the Bible in regard to the primary history is a lost cause because it has already been disproven. The reality is, there was no enslavement or Exodus AS the Bible claims, it MAY have happened on a much smaller scale, but the Biblical accounts of these events are either exaggerated or fantasy.
How has it already been disproven?
------------------
-chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 10-13-2003 2:58 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 10-13-2003 4:44 PM Trump won has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 128 (60758)
10-13-2003 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by IrishRockhound
10-13-2003 3:28 PM


Hi Rockhound,
quote:
Originally quoted by IrishRockhound
Would it be possible to construct a timeline of events for Egypt and Israel without referring to the bible stories? Then both accounts could be compared for similarities and perhaps matched accordingly.
Of course, I don't know whether it's possible under any circumstances. As to the attempt though, personally, I consider the bible to be a source the same as any other. Although, as with all sources, its relative merit must be evaluated in each individual case.
quote:
IrishRockhound:
As for the 'habiru' - if the term is used for a social group as opposed to an ethnic group, is it possible that it does not actually refer to the Hebrews themselves?
My understanding is that "habiru" is now considered to be a more or less generic term applied to "roving bands" or "renegades", particularly those of asiatic descent.
So, while Hebrews can be habiru, not all habiru are Hebrews.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by IrishRockhound, posted 10-13-2003 3:28 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by IrishRockhound, posted 10-14-2003 9:55 AM Amlodhi has not replied

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


Message 37 of 128 (60759)
10-13-2003 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Amlodhi
10-13-2003 4:08 PM


Hi Amlodhi,
It is good that someone with similar interests is now involved at the forum.
Could you perhaps clear up a couple of points for me?
you say:
I said in my post that I think Saul, David and Solomon were actual rulers in Judah
then you say :
Also, as far as this thread is concerned, archaeological evidence is of the essence. What one does or doesn't "believe" is irrelevant.
What is it in the archaeological record that makes you think that these three rulers were real people? DO you not find it suspect that the only piece of 'evidence' that we have for any of these three rulers is the very ambiguous Tel Dan Stele. Wouldn't you expect to find, if the biblical tales are true regarding these three people, more than this one vague reference?
The Tel Dan Stele is more likely to be a reference to a place or a temple and is not a clear cut reference to King David.
I agree with you over the minimalist / maximalist / revisionist name calling. In my opinion this is clouding the debate, but one side is as bad as the other. We have WIlliam Dever calling for cross disciplnary co-operation and then he enters into a tirade against the 'minimalists'!
The Phillip Davies is just as bad as Dever, he also calls for co-operation and understanding then immediately launches into a attack on Dever!
I am not a lover of Dever, he virtually called a good friend of mine anti-semitic on various ocassions, but you do have to acknowledge his contribution to the debate.
The five cities of the plain was another blunder by the 'maximalists' of course. When the Ebla tablets were being prepared for publication they were already claiming how Sodom and Gomorrah were supported in the Ebla tablets, of course, it emerged that there was no reference at all to either city in the texts.
Regarding Ron Wyatt. Wyatt wasnt an archaeologist, he was a nurse who had no archaeological training and his claims are absolutely ridiculous. If he has found all these artefacts why is then no clear proof? He always seemed to have some excuse as to why he didnt bring any artefacts back from his excavations.
I look forward to some enjoyabe discussions.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Amlodhi, posted 10-13-2003 4:08 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Amlodhi, posted 10-13-2003 8:30 PM Brian has replied

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


Message 38 of 128 (60760)
10-13-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Trump won
10-13-2003 4:23 PM


Hiya,
I will go through this with you and demonstrate how it has been disproven by asking you to answer some simple questions.
Can you tell me, according to the Bible, when the Exodus happened, what date does the Bible present as the date of the Exodus and please give supporting evidence.
Thank you.
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Trump won, posted 10-13-2003 4:23 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Trump won, posted 10-13-2003 5:38 PM Brian has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 39 of 128 (60766)
10-13-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brian
10-13-2003 4:44 PM


While looking through Exodus it says at the end of the 430 years they had lived in Egypt--? Care to tell me where this is going?
------------------
-chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 10-13-2003 4:44 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Brian, posted 10-13-2003 5:55 PM Trump won has replied

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


Message 40 of 128 (60770)
10-13-2003 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Trump won
10-13-2003 5:38 PM


Hiya,
I didn't ask how long they had been in Egypt for, I am asking when were they there? What date does the Bible give for the Exodus? It does give a date, you just have to dig into the text a little.
Where is this going? It is going exactly where I said it would go. I am going to show you how the Bible has been disproven.
If you simply answer the questions it wuld be much easier for you to understand, trust me.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Trump won, posted 10-13-2003 5:38 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Trump won, posted 10-13-2003 9:30 PM Brian has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 128 (60786)
10-13-2003 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Brian
10-13-2003 4:41 PM


Hi Brian,
quote:
Originally posted by Brian
What is it in the archaeological record that makes you think that these three rulers were real people?
As long as you understand that saying, "I think" (at this time) that they existed, does not mean "I'm sure" they existed, then here is my answer:
1) As I mentioned to Rockhound, I consider the bible to be a source like any other. Although I think the bible is greatly elaborated and written with an overwhelmingly theistic slant, I also think that there is an underlying core of factual references. In this case I can imagine no reason for the persistent tradition of David among the Judeans, other than that he was an actual person.
2) The fact that "byt Dwd" (in the Tel Dan inscription) is not in the construct form originally bothered me also (and still does a little). However, this same form is used in Isaiah 7:2 in the phrase, "And it was told (to) the house of David, saying . . .", and must consequently be referring to the "house of David" as a place (since as in the Tel Dan, there is no word divider). Since it would be very unusual to tell a "temple" anything, "house of David" as used here must roughly translate as, say, "Judah", since it might be reasonably said that "it was told to Judah".
Thus the Tel Dan inscription:
"[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation]." ("The Bible Unearthed", Israel Findelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, pg. 129, Touchstone pub., New York, 2002)
From the above grammatical considerations then, I see no objection to reading the relevant phrase as "Jehoram, king of Judah." (which he was). Since the context of the stela dates it to c. 835 b.c., the implication is that the nation of Judah was known and referred to as "the house of David" within 100 yrs. or so of David's rule.
3) Also, though less attested, is Andre' Lemaire's suggestion that a reference to "house of David" can be found on the Mesha inscription.
Again, one explanation as to why so little artifactual evidence has been found in Jerusalem itself is that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were simply not the sprawling edifices portrayed in the bible.
quote:
Brian:
We have WIlliam Dever calling for cross disciplnary co-operation and then he enters into a tirade against the 'minimalists'!
I've not read Dever much, outside of articles in BAR.
quote:
Brian:
The five cities of the plain was another blunder by the 'maximalists' of course. When the Ebla tablets were being prepared for publication they were already claiming how Sodom and Gomorrah were supported in the Ebla tablets, of course, it emerged that there was no reference at all to either city in the texts.
I would be interested to read your references on this. My understanding is that tablet 1860 of the Ebla (or Tel Mardikh) collection lists, (in the Akkadian): si-da-mu (Sodom); e-ma-ra (Gomorrah); ad-ma (Admah); si-ba-i-um (Zeboiim); and be-la, known to be Tsoar (Zoar). I was also under the impression that Giovanni Pettinato withdrew his publication on this as a result of political pressure applied by Syria (i.e. so he could continue working there). Do you know of anyone else who has published an alternate translation?
quote:
Brian:
Regarding Ron Wyatt. Wyatt wasnt an archaeologist . . . and his claims are absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, I should have said "self-proclaimed" archaeologist and I agree, his claims are ridiculous in the extreme.
quote:
Brian:
I look forward to some enjoyabe discussions.
It's my idea of a good time.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Brian, posted 10-13-2003 4:41 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Brian, posted 10-15-2003 7:34 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 42 of 128 (60796)
10-13-2003 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Brian
10-13-2003 5:55 PM


1 Kings 6
1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
------------------
-chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Brian, posted 10-13-2003 5:55 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Brian, posted 10-14-2003 3:51 AM Trump won has replied

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


Message 43 of 128 (60833)
10-14-2003 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Trump won
10-13-2003 9:30 PM


So this places the Exodus from Egypt in which year approximately?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Trump won, posted 10-13-2003 9:30 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Trump won, posted 10-16-2003 9:55 PM Brian has replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 44 of 128 (60851)
10-14-2003 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Amlodhi
10-13-2003 4:40 PM


Ok, I'm already feeling out of my depth here. The discussion is very interesting though...
I think I'll watch for a bit. Wouldn't want to betray my vast ignorance...
The Rock Hound

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Amlodhi, posted 10-13-2003 4:40 PM Amlodhi has not replied

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


Message 45 of 128 (61070)
10-15-2003 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Amlodhi
10-13-2003 8:30 PM


Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
1) As I mentioned to Rockhound, I consider the bible to be a source like any other. Although I think the bible is greatly elaborated and written with an overwhelmingly theistic slant, I also think that there is an underlying core of factual references. In this case I can imagine no reason for the persistent tradition of David among the Judeans, other than that he was an actual person.
How do we determine then which are factual and which are fictional references? Can we really say that David must have been a real person because the tradition has lasted?
Don’t you think that the reason that these traditions have lasted is to support the Israelites claim to the land? This can be a pretty good reason to maintain that David’s stories are true. And if they want to maintain this then surely they need to provide some non-biblical sources to support this.
I also consider the Hebrew Bible as a source, and treat it the same way that I would treat any other ancient source, which means that the supernatural events need to be either explained by natural phenomenon or they need to be rejected. The majority of the claims made in the Bible for Israel’s early history are presented as if they are nothing more than fantasy, there may be some history behind these tales but how do you go about filtering these?
2) The fact that "byt Dwd" (in the Tel Dan inscription) is not in the construct form originally bothered me also (and still does a little).
Apart from the fact that the word divider is missing and that in every other instance of this it always refers to a place, there is also the fact that the inscription is actually pieced together very dubiously. It wasn’t all found at the same time, and the joint is very uncertain. The text is also from two different scribes, and there really is quite a bit of guesswork involved in the joining by Biran and Naveh.
However, this same form is used in Isaiah 7:2 in the phrase, "And it was told (to) the house of David, saying . . .", and must consequently be referring to the "house of David" as a place (since as in the Tel Dan, there is no word divider). Since it would be very unusual to tell a "temple" anything, "house of David" as used here must roughly translate as, say, "Judah", since it might be reasonably said that "it was told to Judah".
There is more than this that bothers me, and I am also concerned that an Aramaic inscription appears to have far more references to Hebrew historical characters than to their own people. Also, when referring to the Tel Dan inscription it is more accurate to talk about two inscriptions with the second part (which is two pieces) found a year after the first part and it is still hotly disputed whether these fragments all belong to the same inscription or not. (Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, SPCK London 1998. pp38-44)
What is very clear is that the fragments belong to two different inscriptions, this much is obvious when they are put side by side. The most noticeable characteristic of the inscription is that the lines do not match at all. Also, it is evident that the style of writing is different on each fragment.
The fragments were found at a fair distance apart, around 8 metres, and these were not in situ, and they were in secondary use in the city wall at Tel Dan. The inscription is best described as two different parts of the same inscription, with a different engraver responsible for their own part, or as two separate, though related, parts.
Avraham Biran, along with his epigrapher Joseph Naveh, dated the inscription to the mid 9th century BCE. They claimed that the inscription celebrates the victory of an unknown Aramaean king over the allied forces of Israel and Beth David; of course Beth David has to be taken as the dynastic name for Judah.
Biran and Naveh wrote a second article, which claims that they had identified the Israelite and Judaean kings who were killed by the author of the inscription as Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Of course these are based on the false joint of all the fragments and on their own reconstruction of the text.
This reconstruction produces immediate problems. There are no other sources that claim that Ahaziah of Judah was killed by an Aramaean king. In fact, this contradicts the biblical account of how these two kings came to meet their deaths.
2 Kings 9:21-29:
21"Hitch up my chariot," Joram ordered. And when it was hitched up, Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah rode out, each in his own chariot, to meet Jehu. They met him at the plot of ground that had belonged to Naboth the Jezreelite.
22 When Joram saw Jehu he asked, "Have you come in peace, Jehu?"
"How can there be peace," Jehu replied, "as long as all the idolatry and witchcraft of your mother Jezebel abound?"
23 Joram turned about and fled, calling out to Ahaziah, "Treachery, Ahaziah!"
24 Then Jehu drew his bow and shot Joram between the shoulders. The arrow pierced his heart and he slumped down in his chariot.
25 Jehu said to Bidkar, his chariot officer, "Pick him up and throw him on the field that belonged to Naboth the Jezreelite. Remember how you and I were riding together in chariots behind Ahab his father when the LORD made this prophecy about him:
26 'Yesterday I saw the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons, declares the LORD, and I will surely make you pay for it on this plot of ground, declares the LORD.' Now then, pick him up and throw him on that plot, in accordance with the word of the LORD.
27 When Ahaziah king of Judah saw what had happened, he fled up the road to Beth Haggan. Jehu chased him, shouting, "Kill him too!" They wounded him in his chariot on the way up to Gur near Ibleam, but he escaped to Megiddo and died there.
28 His servants took him by chariot to Jerusalem and buried him with his fathers in his tomb in the City of David.
29 (In the eleventh year of Joram son of Ahab, Ahaziah had become king of Judah.)
If Biran had correctly joined the fragments and that record accurate history, then it would be an amazing artefact, because it would mean that we have a contemporary text that flatly contradicts the Hebrew Bible. If it is to be harmonised with the Hebrew Bible then Jehu would have to be the author of this text, which would be a major problem for an accurate historical reconstruction, since that would make Jehu an Aramaean prince, no scholar would entertain this.
There are other problems with the inscription. Biran and Naveh relied considerably on palaeographic evidence to date the inscription to the mid 9th century BCE. This will then date the Tel Dan inscription to be contemporary with the Moabite inscription of King Mesha and a fair bit older than most of the Aramaic monumental inscriptions found so far. The almost total absence of contemporary Aramaic evidence makes the dating uncertain, as the closest comparison could only be made with the Mesha inscription, which is not even in Aramaic, the Mesha inscription is written in Moabite, and is palaeographically different from the Tel Dan inscription anyway. If both inscriptions are scrutinised letter by letter then some scholars claim that the end of the 9th century BCE suits the inscription much better, other scholars would even date the inscription to the mid 8th century BCE.
Thus the Tel Dan inscription:
"[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation]." ("The Bible Unearthed", Israel Findelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, pg. 129, Touchstone pub., New York, 2002)
From the above grammatical considerations then, I see no objection to reading the relevant phrase as "Jehoram, king of Judah." (which he was). Since the context of the stela dates it to c. 835 b.c., the implication is that the nation of Judah was known and referred to as "the house of David" within 100 yrs. or so of David's rule.
I have both of Biran and Naveh’s articles on my bookshelf here and this is their translation.
1.
2. My father went up
3..and my father died, he went to {his fate.Is-
4.rael formerly in my father’s land
5. I [fought against Israel?] and Hadad went in front of me
6. my king. And I slew of [them X footmen, Y cha-]
7. riots and two thousand horsemen
8. the king of Israel. And [I ] slew -the kin
9. g of the house of David. And I put
10. their land
11. other.[ru-]
12. led over Is[rael]
13. siege upon.
You can see that there is a lot of conjecture here, there really isn’t that much that is certain about the inscription. Perhaps the reference to the ‘House of David’ by an Aramaean scribe is the only name that they know that is applied to the Judah monarch, this may simply be the repeating of a tradition that has become attached to the Judah monarchs.
3) Also, though less attested, is Andre' Lemaire's suggestion that a reference to "house of David" can be found on the Mesha inscription.
Yes, this is well-known in certain circles though, but Lemaire’s suggestion is universally rejected on a linguistic basis.
The actual genuineness of the Moabite Stele has never been seriously questioned, but the contents of the inscription are of limited value. For example, it mentions the ‘House of Omri’ but whether this is to be taken as a specific reference to the ‘House of Omri’ or just a generalisation applied to Israel is debatable.
I know that the reference in question is in line 12 and reads ‘r’l dwdh , there have been various claims made for the ‘dwdh’ of the text. The most important observation is that ‘dwdh’ contains the same consonants as ‘dwd’, which is allegedly, according to Lemaire, a reference to ‘King David’. However, the ‘David’ in the Hebrew Bible is mostly used as a personal name but the ‘dwdh’ of the Moabite Stele cannot be a reference to David because personal suffixes are not used in personal names in Semitic writings. The ‘dwdh’ means ‘his David’ so this reference must be to a title, a place, or another item, but never a personal name.
There are various possibilities that this could be referring to, the well known epithet ‘my beloved’, or it may be the name of a Moabite god called ‘Duado’, it could also be translated as ‘leader’ or ‘governor’. Of course these are all debatable, but what isn’t in this discipline?
Again, one explanation as to why so little artifactual evidence has been found in Jerusalem itself is that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were simply not the sprawling edifices portrayed in the bible.
This is probably the only reasonable answer to the puzzle, either that or these characters are fictional. The problem I see here for Bible believers is that if these people’s lives and events associated with them are greatly exaggerated then can we really trust the Bible as a book of ultimate truths? If these stories are exaggerated then it is arguable that the authors were blatant liars, so why trust anything in the Bible?
I've not read Dever much, outside of articles in BAR.
Oh Dever is a strange beast, he is the most prolific author in the entire debate of Ancient Israel’s origins. He is mellowing, I think, he certainly is 100% sure that the Exodus and Conquest didn’t happen as portrayed in the Bible. When a maximalist of Dever’s standing comes to this conclusion, then the Bible text really is in trouble.
I would be interested to read your references on this. My understanding is that tablet 1860 of the Ebla (or Tel Mardikh) collection lists, (in the Akkadian): si-da-mu (Sodom); e-ma-ra (Gomorrah); ad-ma (Admah); si-ba-i-um (Zeboiim); and be-la, known to be Tsoar (Zoar). I was also under the impression that Giovanni Pettinato withdrew his publication on this as a result of political pressure applied by Syria (i.e. so he could continue working there). Do you know of anyone else who has published an alternate translation?
I have a book by Paolo Matthiae, the Director of Excavations at Mardikh, called Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered, Hodder and Stoughton, London 1977.
In the Preface (p.11)he writes: It has been said that in the texts of the State Archives of mature Early Syrian Ebla there is proof of the historical accuracy of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and other cities of the plain, and a literary text with the story of the Flood. These are tales without foundation.
There are no more references to the five cities of the plain in the rest of the book and I have been unable to find a translation of tablet 1860 in the library. I thought it would be in Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, but that book was out on loan. Can you tell me where your translation comes from and maybe I can track that down and examine the references in that?
In a later edition (1980) of the same book, Matthiae elaborates a bit more, on page 11 of this book he writes:
Polemics, often harsh and always painful for the author have arisen from individual speculations about presumed connections between the Ebla texts and Biblical characters, stories and episodes. The interest aroused among the public by these unfounded inferences of a relationship between Ebla and the Bible is understandable, but it must clearly be said that documentary evidence of them is effectively non-existent.
In the book Ebla: An archaeological Enigma by Chaim Bermant and Michael Weitzman, Weidenfield and Nicolson, London 1979, this misconception is dealt with more thoroughly.
On page 2 is an extract from an interview with Mattiae in which he says:
The tablets cover a period of a thousand years before Abraham, and a thousand years, even n the fourth millennium before Christ, was a very, very long time. They can tell us much, but what they don’t tell us, what they cannot tell us, is whether the Bible is true or not. They have nothing to do with the Bible, at least not directly, and what we have here is not a biblical expedition. If we have tablets with legends similar to those of the Bible it means only that such legends existed round here long before the Bible. .
I think it was Pettinato’s exuberance that resulted in his removal from the team. It appears that the supply of photographs of tablets to Pettinato began to dry up and finally ended. He was informed, without consultation, that an international committee, of equally qualified scholars, had been formed to work on the tablets, so he was effectively ousted( Bermant and Weitzman page 6).
Roger Morey writes in A Century of Biblical Archaeology Lutterworth Press, Cambridge, 1991, that
The print was barely dry on the page before the proposed identification of the cities of the plain was being withdrawn by the Ebla team's philologist. Archaeologists were quick to point out that the Early Bronze III-IV evidence from Transjordan must be interpreted in its own context and was in no way exceptional. (page 149-50)
I think one of the clearest things to emerge out of the Ebla affair is that Bible inerrrantists do not understand archaeology. They do not seem to realise that even if the tablets do mention Sodom and Gomorrah, then it doesn’t follow that everything said about them in the Bible is true. It is the same with anything archaeological, it can only provide inferences, even if hundreds of tablets were found that mentioned King David, it doesn’t follow that everything about him in the Bible is then true, it only infers that they could be true.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Amlodhi, posted 10-13-2003 8:30 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Amlodhi, posted 10-17-2003 8:33 PM Brian 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