biblical archaeology

Hi Rock Hound, etal . . .It was suggested by IrishRochhound that we start a new thread here as the subject of biblical archaeology is off topic for the "faith & healing" forum.Though it was, originally, planned to simply review the points that messenjaH had posted, there has since been several additional points raised on this subject.I would like to suggest then, that either messenjaH or Pringlesguy7 choose one point and submit it here for discussion. Multiple points in one post are entirely too time and space consuming to address adequately. Once the relevant information concerning the first point has been evaluated, subsequent points can follow in the same (one at a time) format.If all who have expressed the desire contribute, each of us will be in a better position to become aware of the available facts and, thus, to assess the implications.I would also like to express my hope that this will remain a discussion as opposed to a battle. Nothing we say here will change the actual facts of objective history (whatever they may have been), but if each of us is able to learn more about these facts from each other, we will all have won.So I will ask messenjaH or Pringlesguy7 to choose one from among the archaeological finds you have mentioned, and I look forward to the discussion.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hello NosyNed,

quote:

---

Originally posted by NosyNed

​

Is there any undiscoverd archeological evidence that would be really, really nice to find?

---

How about a pottery remnant with the inscription, "Dear Mr. Pilate, here is some cleansing oil for washing dirty hands"? (Sorry, I cadged this from the movie; "The Body".)Seriously, of course there are things that, if found, would change the entire paradigm of biblical criticism.

quote:

---

NosyNed:

​

. . .there was some excitement over the James Ossirary (spelling?)

---

As was demonstrated in the furor over the James Ossuary, it is usually prudent to subdue preconceptions and thus not (as I've heard it said) "trip over one's precepts and come sprawling to a conclusion".Similar overzealous behavior arises from more mundane finds. The dating of the Siloam tunnel is a case in point. Although there was contention from some corners, and although the name of Hezekiah was absent from the Siloam inscription, the majority of biblical scholars had no problem with accepting that the tunnel was built in Hezekiah's time to divert a water source inside the walls of Jerusalem. We even have the writings of Sennacherib (From the Oriental Institute Prism of Sennacherib)which speaks of his siege of Jerusalem. Does this prove the veracity of the biblical account?Contrary to the further biblical account concerning the outcome of this siege, the Sennacherib inscription says, "As to Hezekiah the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke. I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered them. . . . Himself (Hezekiah), I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. . . . Thus I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the "Katru'"-presents (due) to me (as his) overlord which I imposed (later) upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually."(Excerpted from: "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament", James B. Pritchard, ed.; Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1969.)As the above inscription demonstrates, verifying the date of the tunnel is in no way the same as verifying the veracity of the biblical account of the siege.Since Sennacherib's seige occured in 701 b.c., it surprised no one that the tunnel would date to 700 b.c. (+/- 100 yrs), although I was mildly surprised at the apologist's sudden advocacy of the validity of radiometric and carbon dating techniques.

quote:

---

NosyNed

​

Of the supposed "90%" that is missing, what would we most like to find?

---

This supposition of 90% has not been demonstrated. Perhaps we will see some support for this position during the discussion.I hope you will join us.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-09-2003]

Hello Chiroptera,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chiroptera

​

How about unequivocal evidence for the existence of King David or Solomon? Do we have that, yet?

---

Unequivocal? No.It is getting late here and, as I mentioned in the OP, I hope we can take each of these points one at a time and discuss them in depth.Without reviewing sources, however, IIRC the only (alleged) reference to King David is the Tel-Dan inscription. One of the reasons it is controversial is because the phrase, "Bytdwd" (house of David) has no word separation. This grammatical form is usually indicative of a town as in "Bytlehem". Clans or ruling houses, OTOH, are usually in the noun construct form which requires hyphenation, i.e. "Byt-Dwd".A full evaluation of the Tel-Dan inscription and the controversy surrounding the alleged uncovering of Solomon's stables, etc. will have to await their turn. None of these points can be adequately evaluated if they're not taken one at a time.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hi Pringlesguy7,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pringlesguy7

​

well one interesting thing they did find last year, was a box, with an inscription reading "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". I forget what it was exactly called.

---

Pringlesguy7, this was the James Ossuary and it has been convincingly shown to be a fraud.You see though, this is the type of thing I would like to avoid. When numerous points (interspersed with links) are thrown about all at once, no point is sufficiently examined. Thus, we still have people pointing to the ossuary as (supposed) proof of biblical veracity.Please choose one point from the list you posted on the other forum. Then let us proceed to find out everything there is to know about that one point for all to see (no links) and thereby make an educated evaluation. Then we can move to the next point.Also, again, I would like to keep this discussion not only civil, but also, focused on history and archaeology. Biblical references are certainly relevant, but faith based conjecture should remain in the other forum.So choose your topic and let's have some fun learning all about it.Namaste'Amlodhi

quote:

---

Originally posted by NosyNed

​

The ossuary is authentic. The inscription has been demonstarted to be a fake.

---

You are, of course, absolutely correct. Thanks for clarifying my potentially misleading statement.P.S. You wouldn't be holding out on us, would you Ned?Namaste'Amlodhi

Hi Rock Hound,

quote:

---

Originally posted by IrishRockhound

​

As far as I know, biblical archaeology started with excavations in Egypt, as people began looking for evidence of the Israel Sojourn there.

---

You're likely correct as far as looking for specific biblical corroboration. However, the first serious archaeological expedition to provide such corroboration was probably the excavation of Ur. This expedition, a joint undertaking by the British Museum and the University Museum of Pennsylvania and under the directorship of Sir Leonard Wooley, was carried out between the years of 1922 and 1934.

quote:

---

IrishRockhound:

​

I suggest that the historical figures of the Old Testement might have existed, in particular David, Solomon, Moses and whatnot.

---

David, Solomon and Moses "might" have existed, but I'm pretty sure that Whatnot was just a myth

quote:

---

IrishRockhound:

​

This shows that whatever else people may think, the bible is not entirely a work of fiction.

---

No, I also don't think that the bible is a complete fabrication. I am hoping that this thread will be a joint effort to assemble the available and actual facts pertaining to each individual archaeological discovery so that we can then make an educated evaluation of the implications.Since I doubt that messenjaH or Pringlesguy7 will mind, you can if you wish, pick a particular archaeological find relating to either the sojourn in Egypt or the exodus and we will begin with that.Namaste'Amlodhi

Oh, what sweat and strain might have been avoided had only Moses (or whomever) seen fit to name the Pharaoh of the oppression. Alas!I first became aware of David Rohl's new chronological theories (quite by accident) via a television documentary on which he happened to be discussing his ideas. This was many years ago, and while I have since read various discussions and articles outlining his work, I have not read his books. (But that's alright because if I purchase just one more book from Amazon this year I can claim them as a dependent on my tax return)From what I have read, however, I concur with IrishRockhound that Dr. Rohl (I presume he has his PhD by now) should not be simply dismissed out of hand.Nevertheless, he does make some connections which I think are weak and, in some cases, even contra-indicative.If I understand correctly, some problems arise when trying to equate the proposed "new" Egyptian chronology with Babylonian records. I will, however, need to do some research to become familiar not only with his position on this, but also in regard to his proposed archaeo-astronomical connections.I am more familiar with the Amarna letters and because the conventional Hebrew chronology remains unaffected (as it is derived primarily from Assyrian and biblical records), I would be on safer ground discussing Dr. Rohl's proposal that the Amarna period was contemporary with the united kingdoms period of Judea/Israel.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.For now, however, I will confine my questions and comments to the identification of the "habiru" and a short reference to the Merneptah Stela.It is my understanding that in the early days of archaeology, if was considered that the term habiru (hapiru, apiru, hapiri) was synonomous with "Hebrew" (stemming from "ibri"). Subsequent data accumulation seems to indicate that this is incorrect.Basically, the wide geographical and temporal range over which this term has been found to have been used, indicates that it is a generic term applied to a social category as opposed to a specific ethnic group.An interesting reference to the hapiri, occurs in the Hittite treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru. The final portion of this document is an invocation of the gods (to seal the treaty). The relevant section reads:". . . (numerous gods listed) . . . the Lulahhi gods and the hapiri gods . . . the gods and goddesses of Hatti (Hittite) land (and) the gods and goddesses of Amurru land, all the olden gods." [ "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament", James B. Pritchard ed.; Princeton University Press, 1969] (emphasis mine).It would seem from this that if the hapiri (habiru) are identified with the ancient Hebrews, then the ancient Hebrews were apparently polytheistic.Also, from the papyrus Leiden 348:". . . the apiru who drag stone for the great pylon of the Rameses II Beloved of Truth."If then, the apiru are Hebrews and (as Dr. Rohl suggests) Ramses II reigned during the united kingdoms period, (and from additional references to apiru in Egypt); apparently there were Hebrew slaves in Egypt between the events of the Exodus and the reign of Solomon. Considering the ten plaques (especially the death of all the Egyptian firstborn), the fleecing of the Egyptians wealth and the death of the former Pharaoh and his army by drowning in the sea ("of reeds?), the idea that a Hebrew would be allowed to "live" in Egypt (even as a slave) during this period seems unlikely.One additional document relating to the reign of Rameses II coinciding with the united kingdoms is:"(The hymn of) joy at the Accession of Mer-en-Ptah" or "The Merneptah Stela" in which Israel is mentioned. The relevant passage reads:"Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer;
Yanoam is made as that which does not exist;
Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow for Egypt." [Ibid. pg. 378]According to orthodox chronology, Merneptah succeeded Rameses II c. 1214 b.c. If Dr. Rohl's chronology places Rameses II in the united kingdoms period, then Merneptah would be reigning in either the last years of the united kingdom period or perhaps the early years of the divided kingdom period.However, according to J.K. Hoffmeier, "The name of Israel is written with the determinative for people, distinctive from the other names in the inscription that are written with the determinative for territory. This indicates that the Israelites were not a settled people at this time, but were pastoralists living in tents. [J. K. Hoffmeier, "Israel in Egypt, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997]I can only suspect that Dr. Rohl must have some explanation for this because it makes little sense as it stands. The Israeli people could not have been an established kingdom and have no established territory, both at the same time.I look forward to your comments.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-11-2003]

Hi messenjaH,Let's stick with one point at a time, okay?The first example in your post refers to the Joash inscription. If you will look carefully you will see that the date on the article you linked to is Jan. 14, 2003.This article references a preliminary examination of the stela and (again, if you look closely) you will see that the phrase used is "if the stela proves to be authentic."Since the time this article was written that has proven not to be the case. The Joash stela was brought to us by Oded Golan, the same charlatan that brought us the James ossuary. He was arrested for fraud on July 21 and police presented (as evidence) large amounts of forgery equipment that was found in his home.I know you are young; when you get as old and cynical as I am you will be more reluctant to just accept any story without critical examination.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hello again messenjaH,The second example you link to in your post was:THE TWO GREAT PILLARS OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE
by W.B.Don FalconerDid you read this article? If so, I don't understand why you presented it. I found no reference to the finding of any archaeological relics from Solomon's temple. The article is merely speculation on the possible architectural style of Solomon's temple based on the style of temples found at other locations.In fact as far as I have been able to ascertain, and echoed in the words of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman:". . . the archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent. Nineteenth and early twentieth century excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem failed to identify even a trace of Solomon's fabled Temple or palace complex." ["The Bible Unearthed", Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Slberman; Touchstone pub., New York, 2002]Don't misunderstand me. It is my opinion that Saul, David and Solomon were actual people and rulers in Judah. There are also, however, good reasons to think that the biblical accounts of their achievements and exploits are less than factual.Also, it is preferable that you research your examples as much as possible before presenting them. This will automatically reduce the overall bulk of material and relieve others of the burden of doing your homework for you.Namaste'Amlodhi

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.aspThe 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

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

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

Hi Brian,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian

​

How do we determine then which are factual and which are fictional references?

---

Of course, in the absence of corroborating extra-biblical sources, this determination cannot be made with any degree of certainty. The same can be said, however, for virtually any ancient source document. In every given case, certain assessments need be made concerning such things as, the apparent motivation and agenda of the author, the degree to which a statement falls within the parameters of normal "believability" and the internal consistency of the source itself.

quote:

---

Brian:

​

Can we really say that David must have been a real person because the tradition has lasted?

---

"Must have been?" Of course not. It is simply my current opinion that such strong traditions were quite likely based on actual core events as opposed to being strictly fabricated out of whole cloth.

quote:

---

Brian

​

Don’t you think that the reason that these traditions have lasted is to support the Israelites claim to the land?

---

Actually, I don't think that there would have been reason to invent such justification in this time period. In those days it was pretty much "might makes right". Also, such justification (to whatever extent it was needed) would have already been provided in the earlier accounts concerning Abraham.

quote:

---

Brian:

​

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.

---

No argument. Accounts of metaphysical intervention are the purview of religion; not archaeological reconstruction of history.

quote:

---

Brian:

​

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)

---

In addition to your above quote, you introduce several particulars regarding some of the difficulties surrounding the evaluation of the Tel Dan fragment. I won't address these issues point by point simply because there is nothing to disagree with regarding your statements.Various reconstructions (I have read three) are indeed controversial and are based on information provided by the alleged additional fragments. Nevertheless, I do have an enlarged image of the stela and it is readily apparent that the entire "byt dwd" phrase exists clearly and in its entirety on the original fragment with the only area of ambiguity involving the term which immediately precedes this phrase.In fact, the remarkable state of preservation itself has led some to consider that the inscription could be a forgery. And yet, it is difficult to imagine that this could be the case given the circumstances of the discovery.Also, regardless of the uncertain paleographical considerations, pottery sherds found in proximity to the stela suggest the mid-ninth century date with an absolute terminus ad quem of 733 b.c. based on the Assyrian records of Tiglath-Pileser's campaigns in this area. Thus, if it is genuine, even a worst case dating of the stela would begin to introduce time constraints against a complete fabrication of such a tradition.

quote:

---

Brian:

​

. . . of course Beth David has to be taken as the dynastic name for Judah. . . . (T)his may simply be the repeating of a tradition that has become attached to the Judah monarchs.

---

Or it could mean that David was an actual eponymous ancestor. In an era in which succession records tended to be the rule rather than the exception, I would think that this is at least as likely an explanation.

quote:

---

Brian:

​

The actual genuineness of the Moabite Stele has never been seriously questioned . . . but Lemaire’s suggestion is universally rejected on a linguistic basis.

​

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.

---

To my understanding, this is not actually correct. It is line 31 in which Lemaire claims to have discovered the "house of David" inscription. Line 12 reads (from right to left):saw hdwd lara ta mm baw bamlw mkl tyr rqhWhich is translated as:. . . hqr (the town) tyr (belonged) l'kmc (to Kemosh) v'l'mab(and to Moab). vacb(and I brought) mcm (thence) at (direct object indicator) aral (either altar, or, Aral, i.e. Oriel) dwdh (of his beloved, or, his beloved) [some also say chieftain] va?s (and I dragged) . . .. . . the town belonged to Kamosh and to Moab. And I brought thence the altar-hearth of his Beloved, and I draggedOr possibly:. . . the town belonged to Kemosh and to Moab. And I brought thence Aral (Oriel), his beloved (or possibly governor), and I dragged . . .Line 31 is badly damaged and possibly reads (from right to left):a? qw? b hb by nnrwjw xrah nax? ta t(rl ydFor which Lemaire has translated:"[. . .] the sheep of the land. And the house of David dwelt in Horonen."Don't ask me how though because I cannot see it. Apparently Lemaire has re-defined some of the characters.W. F. Albright has: "[. . .] of the land. And as for Hauronen, there dwelt in it [. . . and]"

quote:

---

Brian:

​

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?

---

Not in my opinion.

quote:

---

Brian:

​

In the Preface (p.11)Paolo Matthiae 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 (Paolo Matthiae's) 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?

---

I think that therein lies the problem. The Ebla tablets are a relatively new discovery and while they have only begun to be examined and/or translated, it is altogether too tempting for some to publish prematurely.I have no solid source as proof that the plains cities actually exist in these tablets. The article that I read seemed credible because it stated that the cities were not only listed in the same order as given in the bible but also (and more importantly), they were phonetic transliterations of the biblical names. It simply seems extraordinary to me that there would be any margin for error of translation in an exactly ordered and phonetic rendering. Thus, I can imagine only two possibilities; they are there as advertised or they are not there at all.I will simply withhold judgment until such time as I can obtain a facsimile and/or a transliteration of this tablet.So far, however, I have not been able to find even a suitable translation. I have a copy of Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament" and it is invaluable as a reference. It really needs to be updated though; or perhaps, at least, supplemented. The Ebla tablets are not listed in the (3rd) edition I have since they are simply too recent.

quote:

---

Brian:

​

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.

---

Precisely so. As I said in a previous post; the fact that Rome exists in no way indicates that Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-17-2003]

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