Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 212 (6732)
03-13-2002 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by AARD
03-13-2002 2:26 AM


This is decent article that has a good bibliography at the end.
http://www.probe.org/docs/arch-ot.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AARD, posted 03-13-2002 2:26 AM AARD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-13-2002 8:50 PM Punisher has not replied
 Message 19 by AARD, posted 03-13-2002 11:16 PM Punisher has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 17 of 212 (6752)
03-13-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AARD
03-13-2002 2:26 AM


quote:
No need to get nasty right away.
It's just a bit of sarcasm. I tend to be very sarcastic, but its not personal. So long as you neither intolerant or prejudiced I'm sure we'll get on just fine.
First, let me explain my general position which underpins some of our misunderstanding. I find that too many posts on this board assume that one is either a fundamentalist who takes the Bible to be innerant in all details or that one is out to discredit the Bible. Yet, in fact, most people fall into neither category.
Secondly, I guess I need to clear up what I mean by "reasonably accurate" as it is an inaccurate expression. Your concern seems to be with chronology. This, to me, is a rather narrow view of what history is about and tends to obscure more important aspects of historical study.
There is a huge gulf at present between a traditionalist view of Biblical history and those who regard "Ancient Israel" as fictituous - "sprung out of the fantasy of Biblical historiographers and their modern paraphrasers" as Niels Lemche puts it. In Lemche's view (and Herzog's), Biblical chronology touches real events at certain points, Sennecaherib's campaign of 701 BCE for example, but the version of events is so elaborated that apart from these "points of contact" the history is virtually useless for constructing geo-political chronologies.
My point, is that the Bible is reasonably accurate in that it does touch these points of contact, but what one makes of the details is something quite else. Sennacherib did indeed invade, Jerusalem was not conquered, but according to the Babylonian account this is because Hezekiah paid large amounts of tribute. Seeing through the fog of differing accounts which do not reconcile, requires us to filter out the polemics and understand the author's world view.
In doing this, however, we must be aware that the modern historians and archaeologists also have a world view and can take a polemical stance and this also has to be included in our assessments.The article by Ze'ev Herzog you link to is a great example. This was written for and published in a left-wing Israeli newspaper (Ha'aretz) in 1999 at a time when the peace process was torn over concessions about Israeli and Paletinian control of territory. Ha'aretz supports the "land for peace" position, even today. This "world view" is relevant to the account by Herzog that "Ancient Israel" didn't exist as often believed and that the territory and kingdoms were relatively unimportant and volatile.
Now, I'm not saying that Herzog is wrong - I'm saying that his discourse is also part of the history we must interpret.
When we look at Biblical figures such as Abraham, we cannot tie them into other sources of history, but we can get a general idea of what the "world view" of Bible authors was as concerns their history. And this is of enormous value as it informs our assessment of their historical record and enables us to correlate it with other records - the Bablyonian archival annals for example and to understand how the various discourese of history in the near east interact.
I guess if I can put it simply it would be this - the Biblical account is reasonmably accurate in that it is a useful resource when correlating historical accoutns which have points of contact. It is not an annal in the sense of the Babylonian archives, there is little inscriptional evidence (highly polemic) of the Egyptian sort, but it is important in its own role as a historical discourse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AARD, posted 03-13-2002 2:26 AM AARD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AARD, posted 03-14-2002 12:15 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 18 of 212 (6759)
03-13-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Punisher
03-13-2002 7:28 AM


And here is another excellent article on the various schools of thought on the relationship between archaeology and the Bible in Israel today.
http://artemis.austinc.edu/acad/HWC22/Rome/Archaeology_vs._the_Bible.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Punisher, posted 03-13-2002 7:28 AM Punisher has not replied

  
AARD
Inactive Junior Member


Message 19 of 212 (6777)
03-13-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Punisher
03-13-2002 7:28 AM


Pun - I read your article, thank you for the link. It is a nice apologetic, but not very useful because it basically argues by assertion and fails to back up those assertions. I briefly checked the first link in the bib, but it also appears to be basically an apologetic. I will keep searching.
Notice how the article claims nothing has been found to contradict the biblical account, all the evidence confirms the biblical account, and then fails to provide the evidence. S/G he admits is only a possibility if you believe you that fire rained down from the sky. The Jerico reference was short on many facts which directly counter the argument being made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Punisher, posted 03-13-2002 7:28 AM Punisher has not replied

  
AARD
Inactive Junior Member


Message 20 of 212 (6780)
03-14-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mister Pamboli
03-13-2002 2:58 PM


MP- It's just a bit of sarcasm. I tend to be very sarcastic, but its not personal. So long as you neither intolerant or prejudiced I'm sure we'll get on just fine.
AA- Yeah, I'm pretty easy to get along with as well. Just remember, when I have my sarcastic fits, I always have a smile on my face. I debate the issue, not to discredit the bible or Christianity, but rather to refine my own positions and opinions. Not good to "think" you know the answer. In fact, that starter article, which I read a couple of years ago, was what started my interest. In fact, almost the entire article was a revelation to me. I started with the bias that the OT was fairly accurate Jewish history (with some stories, Genesis, for emphasis). I think I am leaning more toward the minimalist side at this point, because the evidence leads me there.
MP- First, let me explain my general position which underpins some of our misunderstanding. I find that too many posts on this board assume that one is either a fundamentalist who takes the Bible to be inerrant in all details or that one is out to discredit the Bible. Yet, in fact, most people fall into neither category.
AA- I agree. And runs rampant on most boards. I have had a running debate with a creationist for a couple of years now, and we have become good friends, electronically anyway.
MP- Secondly, I guess I need to clear up what I mean by "reasonably accurate" as it is an inaccurate expression. Your concern seems to be with chronology. This, to me, is a rather narrow view of what history is about and tends to obscure more important aspects of historical study.
AA- Sorry for that impression. I was simply replying to the chronology as presented in the site you presented. My reason for doing so, as stated earlier, was that I thought the site had simply inserted those dates into the history. It was simply a starting point.
MP- There is a huge gulf at present between a traditionalist view of Biblical history and those who regard "Ancient Israel" as fictitious - "sprung out of the fantasy of Biblical historiographers and their modern paraphrasers" as Niels Lemche puts it. In Lemche's view (and Herzog's), Biblical chronology touches real events at certain points, Sennecaherib's campaign of 701 BCE for example, but the version of events is so elaborated that apart from these "points of contact" the history is virtually useless for constructing geo-political chronologies.My point, is that the Bible is reasonably accurate in that it does touch these points of contact, but what one makes of the details is something quite else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-13-2002 2:58 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 21 of 212 (7319)
03-19-2002 3:17 PM


Just got done listening to this, on NPR radio.
http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/
quote:
Tuesday, March 19, 2002
Two of the most important holidays to Jews and Christians -- Passover and Easter -- are right around the corner. Tuesday on Talk of the Nation host Neal Conan takes a closer look at the latest advances in biblical archaeology. When it comes to faith, does it matter what is fact and what is fiction?
This topic was the first hour of the program. They say the audio will be available online, after 6:00 pm eastern time. The audio link should be available at the above link.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-20-2002 12:25 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 22 of 212 (7374)
03-20-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
03-19-2002 3:17 PM


Further info on the previously mentioned "Talk Of The Nation" audio feed (quoting from http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=03/19/2002&PrgID=5 ):
quote:
Guests:
Bruce Feiler
*Author, Walking the Bible: A Journey By Land Through the Five Books of Moses (Harper Perennial, 2002)
Rabbi Harold Kushner
*Co-editor, Etz Hayim, the New Torah
*Author of several books including Living a Life That Matters: Resolving the Conflict Between Conscience and Success (Knopf, 2001)
Jonathan Reed
*Archeologist
*Professor of Religion and Biblical Archeology, University of La Verne, La Verne, California
*Co-author, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones; Behind the Texts (Harper San Francisco, 2001) and Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence (Trinity Press, 2000)
The audio is available at:
http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/totn/20020319.totn.01.ram
The radio version of this went 1 hour.
I don't know how long the above linked file will remain available.
Moose
Edited to fix URL
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-19-2002 3:17 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Xombie
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 212 (7389)
03-20-2002 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
03-12-2002 3:58 PM


I'm not sure why you're attacking him, but he's right. That page talks about earlier cultures being the source of many biblical stories, such as Sumeria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 03-12-2002 3:58 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 25 of 212 (8995)
04-26-2002 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
03-12-2002 3:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually,all this goes to show is that the old testament of the Bible is filled with recycled myths from earlier cultures."
--Hm... You still just can't get yourself to suffice your ignorance on the situation, or did I just not see your statement (I'll close my eyes and you can get rid of it if you like). As you said yourself it is not 'iron clad' and it defenantly is not valid here. Furthermore, I found 80 million year old cow menuer in my back yard, guess the disproves Evolution! (please, give support for your assertions, I have been waiting for well over a month now).

What ignorance are you referring to ?
There are many aspects of the Bible stories that are echoes
of Sumerian writings, and of the Hindu Vedas ... both of
which pre-date the bible by several thousand years.
The Hindu Vedas seem to stem from the mysterious Indus Valley
civilisation, which was at a high point around 8000 years ago
(I think).
There is emerging evidence in marine archeology of a high civilisation
which was mature at the end of the last ice age, around 11000 years
ago. Many of it's cities are thought to have been deluged by
cataclysmic flooding brought on by glacial breakdown.
Coastal cities I might add ... not globally in land.
If this line of research is born out in the next decade or
so we may find that the original events that gave rise to the
Noah story ocurred some 11000 years ago, when man had existed
in his current form (more or less, and according to Old earth timescales) for 100,000 years.
You demand PROOF of evolution, is it not hypocritical to claim
the accuracy of the bible without providing independent historical
corroboration for the events told in it ?
Surely some Egyptian records should exist which talk of Moses,
after all he was an Egyptian prince ?
Or at least a wall or two from the right date which shows
that someone has been scrubbed from the records ?
This must have happened at a dynastic change over since Pharoahs
son was killed (the first passover), and Pharoah drowned in
the red sea.
Surely such an event would have been recorded by that Pharoah's
successors ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 03-12-2002 3:58 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
dreaded s flynn
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 212 (10459)
05-28-2002 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Peter
02-18-2002 7:34 AM


Old Testament verifications are cited largely as real places,
or large scale historical events (invasions etc). Inclusion
of these is a common story telling technique.
What about references to Moses, the exodus, or such ? These
were big events ... wouldn't they be recorded besides the bible ?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Hi Peter, I am new to this forum but much of the discussion in this thread is an area that interests me.
As for independent evidence for the Exodus etc, the only that i am aware of is in the work done by Immanuel Velikovsky, or based on his work.
He published (after more than a few problems on the way) a book in the fifties attemting to deal with some of the great descrepencies between conventional Egyptian chronology and the history recorded in the old testament of the bible. It is called 'Ages in Choas"
It was quite an ambitious project and I don't know that he was ever happy that he had sorted out all the problems, but he certainly became very controversial!
He suggested that there was an egyptian document that recorded the events of the exodus. This document is known as the Ipuwer papyrus.
I'm sure 'google' can help you find some more info.
Others have used his ideas since then to try to reconcile biblical history with other sources, and to find evidence of characters such as Solomon or The Queen of the South etc.
The solutions attempted usually rely on different cultures having different names for the same people.
sean

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 7:34 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 06-06-2002 7:05 AM dreaded s flynn has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 27 of 212 (11070)
06-06-2002 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by dreaded s flynn
05-28-2002 6:46 AM


I've had a look and found that there is quite a weight of
argument against Velikovsky ... a man who also suggested that
venus was shot out from Jupiter and caused the plagues
of Egypt and the sinking of atlantis.
This link:: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/1326/hatshepsut.html
contains a critique of Velikovsky's contention that Hatshepsut
was the queen of Sheba, and seems fairly convincing to me.
I'm still checking up on the Ipuwer stuff, but that would
place the Exodus at 1500 BCE (I believe) ... does anyone know
how that ties in with literal Biblical dating ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by dreaded s flynn, posted 05-28-2002 6:46 AM dreaded s flynn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peter, posted 06-06-2002 7:20 AM Peter has not replied
 Message 29 by dreaded s flynn, posted 06-08-2002 6:44 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 28 of 212 (11071)
06-06-2002 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peter
06-06-2002 7:05 AM


I found this translation of the Ipuwer writings ::
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htm
And don't find it compelling in terms of the plagues
and exodus I'm afraid.
Anyone else care to have a look and offer an opinion ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 06-06-2002 7:05 AM Peter has not replied

  
dreaded s flynn
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 212 (11175)
06-08-2002 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peter
06-06-2002 7:05 AM


Yes, velikovsky certainly had some interesting ideas (such as his ideas re: venus).
However I think his point that either the conventional egyptian chronology or the biblical one is out by about 600 years is well put. At least one of them must be wrong.
finding 'firm ground' with the traditional egyption chronology has its problems though, as George Rawlinson noted over a century ago.
"it is a patent fact and one that is beginning to obtain general recognition, that the chronological element in early Egyptian history is in a state of almost hopeless obscurity" of the documents and monuments he said, "The chronological value of these variuous sources of information, is however in every case slight. the great defect of these monuments is their incompleteness. the egyptians ahd no era> tey drew out no chronological schemes. they cared for nothing but to know how long each incarnate god, human or bovine, had condescended to tarry on the earth. they recorded carefully the length of the life of each apsi bull, and the length of the reign of each king; but they neglected to take note of the interval between one apis bull and another, and ommitted to distinguish the sole reign of a monarch from his joint reign with others."
a history of egypt II ols Vol II pages 1-2.
Now admittedly much more has come to light since then, but the chronological problems may be cultural.
( I am also curious as to his claim they 'had no era' and how this relates to their sothic cycle).
But the point is that there are problems preferring the conventional chronology.
An interesting article (very recently published) I came across just now may be worth reading, but take note that they do give credence (as i do) to at least some of velikovskys work and the ipuwer papyrus)
I should also disclose that I presuppose the reliabilty of the scriptural record a priori.
Any way enjoy....sean
http://www.ldolphin.org/montgochron.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 06-06-2002 7:05 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 06-11-2002 8:31 AM dreaded s flynn has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 30 of 212 (11302)
06-11-2002 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by dreaded s flynn
06-08-2002 6:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by dreaded s flynn:
Yes, velikovsky certainly had some interesting ideas (such as his ideas re: venus).
However I think his point that either the conventional egyptian chronology or the biblical one is out by about 600 years is well put. At least one of them must be wrong.
finding 'firm ground' with the traditional egyption chronology has its problems though, as George Rawlinson noted over a century ago.
"it is a patent fact and one that is beginning to obtain general recognition, that the chronological element in early Egyptian history is in a state of almost hopeless obscurity" of the documents and monuments he said, "The chronological value of these variuous sources of information, is however in every case slight. the great defect of these monuments is their incompleteness. the egyptians ahd no era> tey drew out no chronological schemes. they cared for nothing but to know how long each incarnate god, human or bovine, had condescended to tarry on the earth. they recorded carefully the length of the life of each apsi bull, and the length of the reign of each king; but they neglected to take note of the interval between one apis bull and another, and ommitted to distinguish the sole reign of a monarch from his joint reign with others."
a history of egypt II ols Vol II pages 1-2.
Now admittedly much more has come to light since then, but the chronological problems may be cultural.
( I am also curious as to his claim they 'had no era' and how this relates to their sothic cycle).
But the point is that there are problems preferring the conventional chronology.
An interesting article (very recently published) I came across just now may be worth reading, but take note that they do give credence (as i do) to at least some of velikovskys work and the ipuwer papyrus)
I should also disclose that I presuppose the reliabilty of the scriptural record a priori.
Any way enjoy....sean
http://www.ldolphin.org/montgochron.html

I'm reading the link you gave now (as I get the chance to), and
find it interesting. I saw part of a documentary series on
TV in the UK some time ago that was putting forward a similar
(or maybe the same) revision to the Egyptian chronology.
Having read the Admonitions of Ipuwer translation that I found
on the web (link posted previously) I'm still not convinced
on that one.
The only real link is this 'river of blood' thing (indidently
the translation in the the link you gave (as a quote) and
the one I've found are different) seems to be talking about
the unrest that's going on and about so many bodies in the
river that its running red with blood.
There is little apart from that to tie this to the plagues in
Exodus. And even that is a little flimsy (in my opinion).
The dating stuff is better for me, as it allows for looking
for events in Egyptian records that tie in to Biblical chronology.
Did the egyptians have a flood myth (should probably say 'story')
too ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by dreaded s flynn, posted 06-08-2002 6:44 AM dreaded s flynn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 06-11-2002 8:50 AM Peter has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 31 of 212 (11304)
06-11-2002 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peter
06-11-2002 8:31 AM


This link::
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/euro18.htm
Might proove interesting in the context of this thread.
It's about the era supposedly of the Exodus, and mentions,
amongst other things, that the jewish one-God concept most
likely originated in Egypt as the worship of Aten (founded
by tutankhamun's dad Ahkenaten).
From a historical perspective, it appears, that a majority of
scholars view the scriptural exodus as an exaggerated/elaborated
version of events which probably happened much more gently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 06-11-2002 8:31 AM Peter 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