Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

  1. #1

    Default The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    These first to quotes are posts I pulled from this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Regarding circular reasoning in archaeology, it isn't anything new or postmodern, rather it seems to be an easy mistake to fall into when building upon other's assumptions as solid fact...

    An example is the case of the so-called Solomonic gates:





    For decades, and to this day in some circles, these were referred to as Solomonic gates, due to the fact that it was "known" that this form of gate originated with the great construction projects of Solomon. According to 1 Kings 9:15, Solomon built the the walls of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, and sure enough, all three cities had similar gates dated stratigraphically to the same period. William Dever who excavated the gate at Gezer was the first to notice the pattern in the 1960s, and that all three gates dated to the time of Solomon's reign, or so it was believed. That was until Israel Finkelstein (one of my main mentors in archaeology) came along an shook things up. Finkelstein argued that the gates all dated to a century later, during the reigns of Omri and Ahab, that similar gates in Syria predated the form, and that the entire accepted absolute chronology being used in the Levant was off by a century because the Bible was being accepted uncritically.

    This upset a lot of archaeologists who didn't consider themselves the types to accept the Bible uncritically. They protested that it was the archaeology that corroborated 1 Kings 9:15, not the other way around, because all the gates dated to the reign of Solomon. The issue is that stratigraphy can only provide a relative chronology, it has to be anchored to historical events in order to turn it into an absolute chronology. Scientific dating methods like C-14 can help narrow things down, but they have a wide margin of error for various reasons. The range of possibility they provide is often not as focused as what we would like for historical purposes. At the time Finkelstein came along with his new "low chronology" challenge, everyone thought he was being pointlessly contrary (at best), because the relative chronology was anchored to numerous historical events. The gates were dated to the reign of Solomon by stratigraphy, the stratigraphy was dated by pottery horizons, the pottery horizons were dated to historical anchors.

    So what is a historical anchor? The destruction of a city in the historical record is a good example. If you see two destruction layers at a city during the Iron Age, and you know according to the historical record that the city was destroyed by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, you assume the earlier destruction layer can be connected to the Assyrian destruction and the later to the Babylonian destruction, and now you have two absolute dates for these stratigraphic layers, and so you cross-reference the pottery horizons with all the other established anchors in the region to make sure analogous pottery horizons all have similar absolute dates, otherwise some anchor is wrong. But what if you have three destruction layers at the site? Not all destructions make it into the historical record, so you look at the absolute dates determined by other anchors in similar pottery horizons. It may be that your destruction layers are 1) Unknown 2) Assyrian 3) Babylonian or 1) Assyrian 2) Babylonian 3) Unknown, etc. It eventually get works out accurately because there are so many interlocking horizons and anchors, each supporting each other.

    So Finkelstein seemed pretty out there challenging this massive matrix of interlocking pottery horizons and anchors, but as Finkelstein discovered, the entire matrix was initially built starting in the early 1900s from an anchor that was an assumption. That is the construction of the gate at Megiddo, which was initially anchored to the reign of Solomon by 1 King 9:15. Prior to the 1990s the absolute chronology of the entire Eastern Mediterranean was wrong. What was happening was that 1 Kings 9:15 was being corroborated by the archaeology because of the Solomonic gates, the Solomonic gates were dated to the reign of Solomon by the stratigraphy, the stratigraphy was dated by the pottery horizons, the pottery horizons were dated by a massive matrix of interlocking historical anchors, the massive matrix historical anchors was built from a foundation that began in the early Twentieth Century, which included the gate at Megiddo, which was anchored to the reign of Solomon by 1 Kings 9:15.
    I somewhat misattributed a hypothesis here. William Dever in the 1960s was largely following Yigal Yadin's ideas from the 1950s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    The case of Finkelstein illustrates that the evidence is often simply not enough to make a definitive conclusion, that there is room for interpretation.

    Note that Finkelstein is only shifting the chronology by a 100 years or so, not a lot of for something 3000 years ago. And he agrees that these structures were the sign of a strong monarchy, just not Solomon's. The dating systems have a enough potential error so that they can be used to support either side of the argumentand dating. However, the only reason that Finkelstein accepts the existence of the later Kings of Israel like Ahab is that they are mentioned in Assyrian sources. If these references, which were just a stroke of luck to find, hadn't been found by archaeologist, Finkelstein would be denying the existence of of king's like Ahab as well. A previous generations of scholars in the 19th century did just that, saying that the whole of the Bible was a myth and u historical. But archaeological discoveries have that claim untenable. We have solid evidence that at least some of the events in the Bible did happen , contrary to what some earlier scholars claimed. Finkelstein does raise the danger of interpreting the archeological evidence in light of what you expect to see, and the evidence might not be as clear as one thinks.

    That being said, simply because some parts of the Bible have been undisputably support by archaeology, does not mean all of it is historical, or accurate. The Bible is composed of many books, written by.many different people, in many different times and places. Like any works, it has to be judged on a case by case basis. Simply because an author got some historical facts right, does not mean everything they wrote is historically accurate. Likewise, simply because an author got some facts wrong, means everything they wrote is wrong either. Even the finest historians sometimes make mistakes and are wrong in what they say. In the case of Finkelstein, given that what the books of King's snd Chronicles said about the later kings and events is often solidly supported by archaeology, I would trnd to give what they say about the earlier king's (David, Solomon) a benefit of the doubt. Our ancient records and archeology of those times are simply not complete enough to absolutely rule out some things.
    The conventional chronology is a dead paradigm. It has essentially succumbed to the evidence associated with Finkelstein’s challenge and been replaced by the “modified conventional chronology”

    The following are the reigns of the relevant kings:

    1010 – 970 BCE David
    970 – 931 BCE Solomon

    884 – 873 BCE Omri
    871 – 852 BCE Ahab

    Note that the height of David’s reign and all of Solomon’s are prior to the last quarter of the Tenth Century. Whereas the Omrides ruled Israel during the Ninth Century. The key issue is the dating of the Iron IIA, the Iron IIA being a period of relative chronology established archaeologically.

    Here are the proposed datings of the Iron IIA:

    1000 – 925 BCE The Conventional Chronology
    930 – 800 BCE The Low Chronology
    960 – 830 BCE The Modified Conventional Chronology

    According to the conventional chronology, a great deal of stratigraphically well-dated monumental architecture sharing similar characteristics can be attributed to the reign of Solomon. According to Finkelstein’s low chronology, this architecture must be attributed to the Omrides.

    You may notice, that the so-called “modified conventional chronology” in its most recent incarnation anyway, is not a modification of the conventional chronology, but in fact the low chronology shifted backward by thirty years. Thirty years just happens to be how far one can shift the low chronology backward and still be within a reasonable portion of the margin of error of the C-14 dates. Shifting the low chronology backward by thirty years allows for the Iron IIA to still overlap the majority of Solomon’s reign, so that monumental architecture can still be attributed to Solomon, but only if one also challenges the stratigraphic dating of this architecture, it now needs to be at least one layer earlier at most sites in order to be attributed to Solomon.

    It occurs to me that the maximalists had no issue with the stratigraphic dating of this architecture until they were forced to move their absolute dating of the Iron IIA, otherwise they would have originally attributed the monumental architecture to David rather than Solomon, but of course it is Solomon who is said to have been the greater builder in the biblical text. This showcases the difference between the methodological schools.

    According to Finkelstein and the Tel Aviv school, the archaeological evidence, epigraphic evidence, and the hard sciences are used to established what can reasonably be considered scientific fact, and the authenticity of each particular biblical claim is assessed on the basis of its plausibility in light of those scientific facts. According to Amihai Mazar and the Hebrew University school, the biblical text, archaeological evidence, epigraphic evidence, and the hard sciences are each given more equal weight. For example, within the Tel Aviv school, a C-14 result will be interpreted at the center of its statistical bell curve and only shifted in order to make it consonant with strong archaeological, epigraphic, or other scientific dating methods. Whereas, with the Hebrew University school's approach, a C-14 result can be shifted to the extreme reasonable end of the margin of error if it allows for all forms of evidence to be interpreted as consonant with the biblical text. Generally, academics outside of Israel tend to align themselves with one school or the other, or go to extremes one way or the other that are beyond what is considered reasonable by those working in Israel.

    Regarding finds that corroborate biblical texts, I can’t see the disparity in this case as being entirely attributed to chance. We have only one find that corroborates David’s existence as the founder of the Judahite dynasty, whereas we have fourteen finds which corroborate Omri’s existence as the founder of the Israelite dynasty (Black Obelisk, Calah Fragment, Kurba'il Stone, Ashur Stone, Nimrud Slab, III R 10.2, ND 4301, ND 4305, Sargon II’s Palace Door, Small Summery Inscription, Cylinder Inscription, Bull Inscription, Mesha Stele, and the Tel Dan Stele). Despite his allegedly ruling over the most powerful kingdom between Egypt and Mesopotamia, we have no corroborating evidence for the existence of Solomon.

    I should note that Finkelstein doesn’t actually deny the existence of David or Solomon, he just believes they were the rulers of a rather small early Kingdom of Judah limited to the Judean Highlands. There are a couple of demographic reasons for this that are not disputed by the maximalists: 1) The entire population of Judah and Benjamin could not have been more than 20,000 during the Iron IIA; 2) The City of Jerusalem could not have had a population greater than 1,000 - 2,000 during this period. Although, we can’t assess what was under the Temple Mount which is where the city almost entirely was during this period, by our best estimation.

    Regarding the historicity of the texts in general, it appears that the basic framework of the Book of Kings is accurate regarding the names of the kings, when they ruled, and what they accomplished. Most of it has been corroborated by extra-biblical sources. The Book of Kings relies on two sources it mentions by name in the text as if everyone would be familiar with them. Those two texts are the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel and the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah. It’s not too hard to guess the nature of these lost documents.

    As far as the Book of Chronicles goes, it appears to offer no historical information not otherwise contained in the Book of Kings which is likely its main source. It was composed in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period, and seems to be a sort of proto-Midrashic literature:

    Midrash (/ˈmɪdrɑːʃ/;[1] Hebrew: מִדְרָשׁ; pl. Hebrew: מִדְרָשִׁים midrashim) is biblical exegesis by ancient Judaic authorities,[2] using a mode of interpretation prominent in the Talmud.

    Midrash and rabbinic readings "discern value in texts, words, and letters, as potential revelatory spaces," writes the Reverend and Hebrew scholar Wilda C. Gafney. "They reimagine dominant narratival readings while crafting new ones to stand alongside—not replace—former readings. Midrash also asks questions of the text; sometimes it provides answers, sometimes it leaves the reader to answer the questions."[3]
    This is Amihai Mazar's summery of his response to Finkelstein's views on the United Monarchy:

    The United Monarchy can be described as a state in an early stage of evolution, far from the rich and widely expanding state portrayed in the biblical narrative. Shoshenq’s invasion of the Jerusalem area probably came in opposition to the growing weight of this state.

    The mentioning of bytdwd (‘the House of David’, as the name of the Judean kingdom in the Aramean stele from Tel Dan, possibly erected by Hazael) indicates that approximately a century and a half after his reign, David was recognized throughout the region as the founder of the dynasty that ruled Judah. His role in Israelite ideology and historiography is echoed in the place he played in later Judean common memory […]

    Rather than accepting a revisionist theory that compels us to discard an entire library of scholarly work, the evidence brought here calls for balanced evaluation of the biblical text, taking into account that the text might have preserved valuable historical information based on early written documents and oral traditions that retained long-living common memory.These early traditions were cast in the mold of literature, legend, and epic,and were inserted to the later Israelite historiographic narrative which is thickly veiled in theology and ideology. Yet many of these traditions contain kernels of historical truth, and some of them can be examined archaeologically, as demonstrated in this chapter. By ridding the texts of their literary, theological and ideological layers and using the archaeological data critically, the Hebrew Bible may be evaluated as a source for the extraction of historical data, yet this has to be evaluated as much as possible in light of external evidence. The results may prevent us—if I may use the colloquialism—from throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”72
    There is something else to be observed here, it's not just that Mazar (Finkelstein's greatest opponent) subscribes to the Hebrew University school, it's that a significant portion of his work and the work of others who oppose Finkelstein is in danger of losing relevance. Nearly all of Finkelstein's academic opposition comes from older scholars who built their careers on hypotheses he has largely made obsolete. Even at the Hebrew University, those who began their careers after Finkelstein came to prominence are much more amenable to his arguments.

    Oda and I also discussed this topic here. I don't find the more moderate hypotheses regarding the existence of the United Monarchy implausible, but the monumental architecture in question is almost certainly Omride in my opinion.
    Last edited by sumskilz; July 24, 2019 at 05:31 AM. Reason: Shockingly, there were some typos in this wall of text.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  2. #2

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    These first to quotes are posts I pulled from this thread.

    I somewhat misattributed a hypothesis here. William Dever in the 1960s was largely following Yigal Yadin's ideas from the 1950s.

    The conventional chronology is a dead paradigm. It has essentially succumbed to the evidence associated with Finkelstein’s challenge and been replaced by the “modified conventional chronology”

    The following are the reigns of the relevant kings:

    1010 – 970 BCE David
    970 – 931 BCE Solomon

    884 – 873 BCE Omri
    871 – 852 BCE Ahab

    Note that the height of David’s reign and all of Solomon’s are prior to the last quarter of the Tenth Century. Whereas the Omrides ruled Israel during the Ninth Century. The key issue is the dating of the Iron IIA, the Iron IIA being a period of relative chronology established archaeologically.

    Here are the proposed datings of the Iron IIA:

    1000 – 925 BCE The Conventional Chronology
    930 – 800 BCE The Low Chronology
    960 – 830 BCE The Modified Conventional Chronology

    According to the conventional chronology, a great deal of stratigraphically well-dated monumental architecture sharing similar characteristics can be attributed to the reign of Solomon. According to Finkelstein’s low chronology, this architecture must be attributed to the Omrides.

    You may notice, that the so-called “modified conventional chronology” in its most recent incarnation anyway, is not a modification of the conventional chronology, but in fact the low chronology shifted backward by thirty years. Thirty years just happens to be how far one can shift the low chronology backward and still be within a reasonable portion of the margin of error of the C-14 dates. Shifting the low chronology backward by thirty years allows for the Iron IIA to still overlap the majority of Solomon’s reign, so that monumental architecture can still be attributed to Solomon, but only if one also challenges the stratigraphic dating of this architecture, it now needs to be at least one layer earlier at most sites in order to be attributed to Solomon.

    It occurs to me that the maximalists had no issue with the stratigraphic dating of this architecture until they were forced to move their absolute dating of the Iron IIA, otherwise they would have originally attributed the monumental architecture to David rather than Solomon, but of course it is Solomon who is said to have been the greater builder in the biblical text. This showcases the difference between the methodological schools.

    According to Finkelstein and the Tel Aviv school, the archaeological evidence, epigraphic evidence, and the hard sciences are used to established what can reasonably be considered scientific fact, and the authenticity of each particular biblical claim is assessed on the basis of its plausibility in light of those scientific facts. According to Amihai Mazar and the Hebrew University school, the biblical text, archaeological evidence, epigraphic evidence, and the hard sciences are each given more equal weight. For example, within the Tel Aviv school, a C-14 result will be interpreted at the center of its statistical bell curve and only shifted in order to make it consonant with strong archaeological, epigraphic, or other scientific dating methods. Whereas, within the Hebrew University school interpretation of a C-14 result can be shifted to the extreme reasonable end of the margin of error if it allows for all forms of evidence to be interpreted as consonant with the biblical text. Generally, academics outside of Israel tend to align themselves with one school or the other, or go to extremes one way or the other that are beyond what is considered reasonable by those working in Israel.

    Regarding finds that corroborate biblical texts, I can’t see the disparity in this case as being entirely attributed to chance. We have only one find that corroborates David’s existence as the founder of the Judahite dynasty, whereas we have fourteen finds which corroborate Omri’s existence as the founder of the Israelite dynasty (Black Obelisk, Calah Fragment, Kurba'il Stone, Ashur Stone, Nimrud Slab, III R 10.2, ND 4301, ND 4305, Sargon II’s Palace Door, Small Summery Inscription, Cylinder Inscription, Bull Inscription, Mesha Stele, and the Tel Dan Stele). Despite his allegedly ruling over the most powerful kingdom between Egypt and Mesopotamia, we have no corroborating evidence for the existence of Solomon.

    I should note that Finkelstein doesn’t actually deny the existence of David or Solomon, he just believes they were the rulers of a rather small early Kingdom of Judah limited to the Judean Highlands. There are a couple of demographic reasons for this that are not disputed by the maximalists: 1) The entire population of Judah and Benjamin could not have been more than 20,000 during the Iron IIA; 2) The City of Jerusalem could not have had a population greater than 1,000 - 2,000 during this period. Although, we can’t assess what was under the Temple Mount which is where the city almost entirely was during this period, by our best estimation.

    Regarding the historicity of the texts in general, it appears that the basic framework of the Book of Kings is accurate regarding the names of the kings, when they ruled, and what they accomplished. Most of it has been corroborated by extra-biblical sources. The Book of Kings relies on two sources it mentions by name in the text as if everyone would be familiar with them. Those two texts are the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel and the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah. It’s not too hard to guess the nature of these lost documents.

    As far as the Book of Chronicles goes, it appears to offer no historical information not otherwise contained in the Book of Kings which is likely its main source. It was composed in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period, and seems to be a sort of proto-Midrashic literature:

    This is Amihai Mazar's summery of his response to Finkelstein's views on the United Monarchy:

    There is something else to be observed here, it's not just that Mazar (Finkelstein's greatest opponent) subscribes to the Hebrew University school, it's that a significant portion of his work and the work of others who oppose Finkelstein is in danger of losing relevance. Nearly all of Finkelstein's academic opposition comes from older scholars who built their careers on hypotheses he has largely made obsolete. Even at the Hebrew University, those who began their careers after Finkelstein came to prominence are much more amenable to his arguments.

    Oda and I also discussed this topic here. I don't find the more moderate hypotheses regarding the existence of the United Monarchy implausible, but the monumental architecture in question is almost certainly Omride in my opinion.


    Contrary to what you have repeatedly claimed, Finkelstein has not disprove the previous chronology, not is dead as you assert. The dating available to us is not precise enough to rule out either Finkelsteins's or the mre traditional fhrnology.

    And Finkelstein has denied there was A King David in any meaningful sense. If he has now been willing to admit there was, is that potential archeological find with a reference to the House of David might make that position untenable, so he is simply hedging his bet if he find proves genuine.
    I
    Finkelstein only acknowledged the Omrides because he has no choice, since there is solid archeological evidence for their existence, and he can't push the dates for the structures found any later than he has. Finkelstein would be denying the exist of Ahab and the other Israelite and Judean king's if he could, but unfortunately actual archeological evidence doesn't allow him to. In the 19th century, predecessors of Finkelstein were saying that all of the history in the Bible was completely a myth, and that none of the kids of Israel and Judea in the Bible existed. They only retreated from that stance when actual archeology showed them to be wrong. Theirs and Finkelstein assumption unless there is positive archeological evidence, then what ver the Bible said must be unhistorifsl. Only if there is solid archeology that prevents them from denying that something was unhistorical will they acknowledge that it was. Finkelstein would be denying the biblical account of the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem if rhe Assyrian accounts hadn't been found corroborating the biblical ones.

    Simply because we haven't found outside accounts corroborating the regn of King David or Solomon, does not mean they did not exist. It was a stroke of luck finding ancient accounts that support even some of the biblical narratives. After the reign of Soon, there is sufficient supporting archeology to indicate that the biblical narratives in King's and Chronicles are reasonably accurate. The accuracy of such details as the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem ans Hezekiah's building of a water tunnel implies that who ever wrote those accounts had to have some kind of historical records available to them. It is most unlikely that they could have gotten as many details correct as they did writing centu is later during the Persian period when some have claimed they were written.

    Given that the later periods of the biblical narratives in King's have been supported by archeology, I think we should be slow to dismss the earlier parts of the reign of King David and Solomon as just myth. So far, there is nothing in the archeology that refutes them, and an absence of evidence does not necessary prove absence or non existence in this case. Our ancient archeological records are simply not complete enough to rule out the biblical narrative, and the dating is not precise enough either. It is fortunate that many of the archeological finds that support the biblical narratives were made in the 19th or early 20th century, because if those same finds were made today I believe they would be dismissed as forgeries because they would run counter to the minimalist views.

  3. #3

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Contrary to what you have repeatedly claimed, Finkelstein has not disprove the previous chronology, not is dead as you assert. The dating available to us is not precise enough to rule out either Finkelsteins's or the mre traditional fhrnology.
    From the perspective of mainstream archaeology, it is dead without a doubt. This is every original academic publication relevant to the debate. You will not find a single one arguing in favor of the conventional chronology since 2005 when Mazar introduced his first iteration of the modified conventional chronology.

    On the other hand:

    ABSTRACT: Nearly a decade ago, a different chronology than the conventional absolute chronology for the early Iron Age in Israel was suggested. The new, lower chronology “transfers” Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA contexts in Israel, traditionally dated to the 11th and 10th centuries BCE, to the 10th and 9th centuries, respectively. Thus, it places the Iron I|IIA transition at about 920–900 BCE. This alternative chronology carries important implications for Israelite history, historiography, and Bible research, as well as for the chronologies of other regions around the Mediterranean. Relevant radiocarbon data sets published to date, which were measured at different sites by different laboratories, were claimed to be incompatible. Therefore, the question of agreement between laboratories and dating methods needs to be addressed at the outset of any study attempting to resolve such a tight chronological dilemma. This paper addresses results pertaining to this issue as part of a comprehensive attempt to date the early Iron Age in Israel based on many sites, employing different measuring techniques in 2 laboratories. The intercomparison results demonstrate that: a) the agreement between the 2 laboratories is well within the standard in the 14C community and that no bias can be detected in either laboratory; and b) calculating the Iron I|IIa transition in 3 different ways (twice independently by the measurements obtained at the 2 labs and then by combining the dates of both) indicates that the lower chronology is the preferable one.
    Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results

    That is even lower than what Finkelstein proposed. Taking just this one line of the mutually supporting streams of data, explain how one reasonably arrives at a date of 1000 BCE for the Iron I/II transition:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    And Finkelstein has denied there was A King David in any meaningful sense. If he has now been willing to admit there was, is that potential archeological find with a reference to the House of David might make that position untenable, so he is simply hedging his bet if he find proves genuine.
    I don't know for certain what you mean by "meaningful sense", but this claim doesn't make sense. Finkelstein's The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: an Alternative View was published in 1996. Both parts of the Tel Dan Stele had been found by 1994, Finkelstein was well aware of it at the time.

    This is exactly what he said in that first paper:

    Needless to say, all this has nothing to do with the question of the historicity of the United Monarchy. The kingdom of David and Solomon could have been a chiefdom, or an early state, in a stage of territorial expansion, but with no monumental construction and advanced administration. Examples of such a historical polity are abundant, for instance the early phase of the history of the Ottoman Turks. They can also be found in the history of Palestine, for example in the large territorial entity of Shechem of the Amarna period.
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Finkelstein only acknowledged the Omrides because he has no choice, since there is solid archeological evidence for their existence, and he can't push the dates for the structures found any later than he has. Finkelstein would be denying the exist of Ahab and the other Israelite and Judean king's if he could, but unfortunately actual archeological evidence doesn't allow him to. In the 19th century, predecessors of Finkelstein were saying that all of the history in the Bible was completely a myth, and that none of the kids of Israel and Judea in the Bible existed. They only retreated from that stance when actual archeology showed them to be wrong. Theirs and Finkelstein assumption unless there is positive archeological evidence, then what ver the Bible said must be unhistorifsl. Only if there is solid archeology that prevents them from denying that something was unhistorical will they acknowledge that it was. Finkelstein would be denying the biblical account of the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem if rhe Assyrian accounts hadn't been found corroborating the biblical ones.
    I'm not sure where you get all this insight into Finkelstein's motivations and modus operandi. I've known him since 2013. I literally learned field archaeology from him, and I don't recognize your characterization. His arguments aren't based on lack of positive archaeological evidence alone, but negative archaeological evidence as well. That is there are things you would expect to see if an empire was ruled from Jerusalem that can't be found when you look for them. You would also expect that there would at least be some sign of Judahite material culture at the copper mines in Timna, yet it appears to have been an entirely Edomite operation. None of that means David and Solomon didn't exist, but it does suggest their stories have been exaggerated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    The accuracy of such details as the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem ans Hezekiah's building of a water tunnel implies that who ever wrote those accounts had to have some kind of historical records available to them.
    As I said in my previous post, the Book of Kings relies on the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel and the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah. It is not surprising that whatever elaborations the author(s) engaged in would be more accurate the closer they are to the time it was written.
    Last edited by sumskilz; July 24, 2019 at 09:05 AM. Reason: meh
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  4. #4
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    Its fascinating to think the stratigraphy is there under people's feet.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    ...we can’t assess what was under the Temple Mount ....
    Why can't we just excavate the Temple Mount?

    Its my struggle too...


    If you did tear it down stone by stone I wonder which assassins would get to you first? My money is on the Pope's men, to stop you finding Jesus' coffin.


    I'm reading Barton's History of the Bible ATM, dry and not as entertaining as Fox's Unauthorised Version (he doesn't leap to as many conclusions and lacks Fox's memorable turns of phrase such as "fond abuser" and "hero's salvage") but its obvious the Jewish Scripture has been through a lot of revisions before it became "set".

    Be good to get at the actual annals (was there a "book of Jashar" referred to as well?) but both kingdoms had their capitals razed and the elite deported: I think the Exile is the editorial threshold and its half a millennium after the fact.

    I think David's historicity is strongly supported by the "court history" narrative which is part GoT part...well actually its just GoT. "Send him to the front so I can bang his wife, and then when I die murder these two guys, one of them was mean to me..." yeah thanks David Targaryen. These gossipy memoirs describing a cruel and rapacious tyrant are no more hagiography than they are theology: they reek of the truth to me.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  5. #5

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    From the perspective of mainstream archaeology, it is dead without a doubt. This is every original academic publication relevant to the debate. You will not find a single one arguing in favor of the conventional chronology since 2005 when Mazar introduced his first iteration of the modified conventional chronology.
    There are a number of well respected mainstream archaeologist who reject Finkelstein's Low Chronology, not just Mazar who you seem to be the only one. I am not sure what you mean by the "convential chronology", where does that place the reigh of King David and Solomon?


    There are some archeological finds that have similarities to the "Solomon Gates" at Meggido, Hazar, and Gezer that don't jive with Finkelstein's theory. An east wall of Jerusalem, dated to around the time of Solomon, shares features with the Solomon Gates, yet there is no evidence to support that the Omri ruled Jerusalem, and Gezer is only 30 miles from Jerusalem, and it is questionable that the Omri dynasty ruled that far south. An Unified Monarchy better fits the data.

    The east wall of Jerusalem excavated by Charles Warren in the 1860's dates from the time of Solomon. This is generally admitted. The construction of this wall matches the construction style and building materials of the gates of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, thus placing them in the mid-10th century as well. The use of Phoenician craftsmen at the three aforementioned cities is also attested in Solomonic Jerusalem, just as the Old Testament asserts; this is proven by the presence of the carven ashlar masonry and the proto-Ionic capitals at all four sites. These common factors, in addition to the measurements of the guardhouses, suggest whoever built the walls of Jerusalem also built the gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor. Since the east wall and its vanished East Gate (which we know from Ezekiel to have had six chambers like the others) dated from the time of Solomon, it follows that the gates of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer likewise were constructed during the reign of Solomon, which is in fact what 1 Kings 9:15 tells us.

    The thesis is not uncontested, however. There is considerable disagreement on whether the gate of Megiddo in particular dates from the time of Solomon. Renowned Israeli archaeologist David Ussishkin considers the ruins of Megiddo's gate to date from the time of Ahab, based on certain topographical considerations relating to the construction. This would not mean that Solomon did not build the gate of Megiddo, however, only that the current ruins are not Solomonic in origin. While Ussishkin's argument has some considerable merit, it does fail to address the similarity between the gates of Megiddo and those of Gezer, Hazor and Jerusalem, all of which are generally agreed to date from the time of Solomon http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/his...ddo-gezer.html


    Your relationship with Finkelstein explains your bias toward his views, but despite both yours and Finkelstein's claim that opponents of the Low Chronology only due so because they are influenced by what the Bible, major critics of the Low Chronology of Finkelstein like William Dever reject most of the history of the Pentuach, and if they reject the Low Chronology, is because the archeological data doesn't support Finkelstein.



    You claim that is only the older archeologist who reject the

  6. #6

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    From the perspective of mainstream archaeology, it is dead without a doubt. This is every original academic publication relevant to the debate. You will not find a single one arguing in favor of the conventional chronology since 2005 when Mazar introduced his first iteration of the modified conventional chronology.
    There are a number of well respected mainstream archaeologist who reject Finkelstein's Low Chronology, not just Mazar who you seem to be the only one. I am not sure what you mean by the "convential chronology", where does that place the reigh of King David and Solomon?


    There are some archeological finds that have similarities to the "Solomon Gates" at Meggido, Hazar, and Gezer that don't jive with Finkelstein's theory. An east wall of Jerusalem, dated to around the time of Solomon, shares features with the Solomon Gates, yet there is no evidence to support that the Omri ruled Jerusalem, and Gezer is only 30 miles from Jerusalem, and it is questionable that the Omri dynasty ruled that far south. An Unified Monarchy better fits the data.

    The east wall of Jerusalem excavated by Charles Warren in the 1860's dates from the time of Solomon. This is generally admitted. The construction of this wall matches the construction style and building materials of the gates of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, thus placing them in the mid-10th century as well. The use of Phoenician craftsmen at the three aforementioned cities is also attested in Solomonic Jerusalem, just as the Old Testament asserts; this is proven by the presence of the carven ashlar masonry and the proto-Ionic capitals at all four sites. These common factors, in addition to the measurements of the guardhouses, suggest whoever built the walls of Jerusalem also built the gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor. Since the east wall and its vanished East Gate (which we know from Ezekiel to have had six chambers like the others) dated from the time of Solomon, it follows that the gates of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer likewise were constructed during the reign of Solomon, which is in fact what 1 Kings 9:15 tells us.

    The thesis is not uncontested, however. There is considerable disagreement on whether the gate of Megiddo in particular dates from the time of Solomon. Renowned Israeli archaeologist David Ussishkin considers the ruins of Megiddo's gate to date from the time of Ahab, based on certain topographical considerations relating to the construction. This would not mean that Solomon did not build the gate of Megiddo, however, only that the current ruins are not Solomonic in origin. While Ussishkin's argument has some considerable merit, it does fail to address the similarity between the gates of Megiddo and those of Gezer, Hazor and Jerusalem, all of which are generally agreed to date from the time of Solomon http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/his...ddo-gezer.html


    Despite claims that opponents of the Low Chronology only due so because they are influenced by what the Bible, major critics of the Low Chronology of Finkelstein like William Dever reject most of the history of the Pentuach, and if they reject the Low Chronology, is because the archeological data doesn't support the Low Chronology.

    We have only one find that corroborates David’s existence as the founder of the Judahite dynasty, whereas we have fourteen finds which corroborate Omri’s existence as the founder of the Israelite dynasty (Black Obelisk, Calah Fragment, Kurba'il Stone, Ashur Stone, Nimrud Slab, III R 10.2, ND 4301, ND 4305, Sargon II’s Palace Door, Small Summery Inscription, Cylinder Inscription, Bull Inscription, Mesha Stele, and the Tel Dan Stele). Despite his allegedly ruling over the most powerful kingdom between Egypt and Mesopotamia, we have no corroborating evidence for the existence of Solomon.
    All of the evidence referred to post dates the reign of King Solomon. The Omri dynasty is the one's that the Assyrian's first would have encountered, so naturally they refer to Israel by that dynasty, the one they first met, even after the Omri dynasty was no more. The Assyrians would have been unlikely to have mention a dynasty that no longer existed by the time the Neo Assyrian empire first arose. Do we have Egyptian sources mentioning the Omri dynasty? Or an Egyptian reference from the alleged time of Solomon before the Omri dynasty that concerned the region? The Tel Dan Stele, which also involved the Kingdom Judea, does possibly refer to the kingdom of David indirectly, which doesn't support you claim. Since it included the Kingdom of Judea, where most of the other references include mostly just the kingdom of Israel, it would be the one most likely to include a reference to the kingdom of David, since the Judean kings claimed descent from him.

    As for the Cylinder Inscription, I assume you mean the Cyrus Inscription, which as far as I know does not mention the House of Omri as you imply, nor does in refer to the dynasty of the House of Judea, so I don't see how that supports you claim of all the evidence for the House of Omri as opposed to David.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; July 24, 2019 at 06:33 PM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Its fascinating to think the stratigraphy is there under people's feet.



    Why can't we just excavate the Temple Mount?

    Its my struggle too...


    If you did tear it down stone by stone I wonder which assassins would get to you first? My money is on the Pope's men, to stop you finding Jesus' coffin.


    I'm reading Barton's History of the Bible ATM, dry and not as entertaining as Fox's Unauthorised Version (he doesn't leap to as many conclusions and lacks Fox's memorable turns of phrase such as "fond abuser" and "hero's salvage") but its obvious the Jewish Scripture has been through a lot of revisions before it became "set".

    Be good to get at the actual annals (was there a "book of Jashar" referred to as well?) but both kingdoms had their capitals razed and the elite deported: I think the Exile is the editorial threshold and its half a millennium after the fact.

    I think David's historicity is strongly supported by the "court history" narrative which is part GoT part...well actually its just GoT. "Send him to the front so I can bang his wife, and then when I die murder these two guys, one of them was mean to me..." yeah thanks David Targaryen. These gossipy memoirs describing a cruel and rapacious tyrant are no more hagiography than they are theology: they reek of the truth to me.

    Religious authorities won't allow archaeological digs on the Temple Mound. That is the problem in Jerusalem, and much of Israel, there are existing buildings in a lot of the areas you would want to dig.

    As for the detail of the King David narrative, that might merely reflect the writer having an active imagination rather than the historicity of the account. Game of Thrones is fiction, after all, even if inspired by the real life War of Roses.

  8. #8
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Religious authorities won't allow archaeological digs on the Temple Mound. That is the problem in Jerusalem, and much of Israel, there are existing buildings in a lot of the areas you would want to dig.
    Sorry I was attempting lowbrow humour. If we turned a spade on the Temple Mount I think there's be people queuing up to execute us.

    My we need Nicholas Cage to do it. 'What if we tunnelled in from the side?"...sorry more poor humour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    As for the detail of the King David narrative, that might merely reflect the writer having an active imagination rather than the historicity of the account. Game of Thrones is fiction, after all, even if inspired by the real life War of Roses.
    I take your point, but for unflattering episodes about the life of such a vaunted figure to survive the mass of editing that took place up to and especially after the Exile (when David was looked back upon as a perfect King Arthur type ruler) suggests that they were considered ancient and authentic...at least five centuries later.

    It may well be falsehood but its indicative that these falsehoods had enough currency as well as plausibility to survive the editor's (very active) pen and add some weight to the argument 1. David was real and 2. so were Absalom, Shimei ben Geira, Barzilai of Gilead etc.. We may have some actual local colour here to cross reference against supposed "Davidic Empire" claims.

    BTW I should amend my statement about the Exilic editorial chokepoint, maybe the variant texts from Qumran indicate surviving pre-Exilic editions.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  9. #9

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    There are a number of well respected mainstream archaeologist who reject Finkelstein's Low Chronology, not just Mazar who you seem to be the only one. I am not sure what you mean by the "convential chronology", where does that place the reigh of King David and Solomon?
    The reigns of David and Solomon are not in dispute. It is the absolute dating of the Iron IIA that is an issue.

    From my first post in the thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Here are the proposed datings of the Iron IIA:

    1000 – 925 BCE The Conventional Chronology
    930 – 800 BCE The Low Chronology
    960 – 830 BCE The Modified Conventional Chronology

    According to the conventional chronology, a great deal of stratigraphically well-dated monumental architecture sharing similar characteristics can be attributed to the reign of Solomon. According to Finkelstein’s low chronology, this architecture must be attributed to the Omrides.

    You may notice, that the so-called “modified conventional chronology” in its most recent incarnation anyway, is not a modification of the conventional chronology, but in fact the low chronology shifted backward by thirty years. Thirty years just happens to be how far one can shift the low chronology backward and still be within a reasonable portion of the margin of error of the C-14 dates. Shifting the low chronology backward by thirty years allows for the Iron IIA to still overlap the majority of Solomon’s reign, so that monumental architecture can still be attributed to Solomon, but only if one also challenges the stratigraphic dating of this architecture, it now needs to be at least one layer earlier at most sites in order to be attributed to Solomon.

    It occurs to me that the maximalists had no issue with the stratigraphic dating of this architecture until they were forced to move their absolute dating of the Iron IIA, otherwise they would have originally attributed the monumental architecture to David rather than Solomon, but of course it is Solomon who is said to have been the greater builder in the biblical text. This showcases the difference between the methodological schools.
    In the quote you’re responding to, I linked to a list of every original academic publication relevant to the debate. As I said, you will not find anyone arguing in favor of the conventional chronology post 2005. It is a dead paradigm, made completely untenable by the radiocarbon evidence. What you will find is Mazar and others arguing in favor of the modified conventional chronology, though there has not been any real effort since 2011.

    According to the conventional chronology, the Iron IIA begins c. 1000 BCE. According to the modified conventional chronology, the Iron IIA begins c. 960 BCE. According to the Low Chronology, the Iron IIA begins c. 930 BCE. According to replicable radiocarbon dating from ten sites across Israel, the Iron IIA begins 910-875 BCE. Consequently, there is no margin of error that makes the conventional chronology possible and we can say with 95% confidence that the modified conventional chronology is likewise incorrect. If anything, Finkelstein's initial proposal of c. 900 BCE, which he later backed off on, is actually more likely to be correct than what he is currently arguing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    There are some archeological finds that have similarities to the "Solomon Gates" at Meggido, Hazar, and Gezer that don't jive with Finkelstein's theory. An east wall of Jerusalem, dated to around the time of Solomon, shares features with the Solomon Gates, yet there is no evidence to support that the Omri ruled Jerusalem, and Gezer is only 30 miles from Jerusalem, and it is questionable that the Omri dynasty ruled that far south. An Unified Monarchy better fits the data.
    The first part of your source here is simply citing Yadin’s pre-1970s hypothesis. Yadin dated the gates to the Iron IIA which was widely accepted back then to be the time of Solomon. The reason it was accepted to be the time of Solomon was because of the gates. This is the circular reasoning I initially referred to. However, if the Iron IIA begins 910-875 BCE as radiocarbon results consistently indicate, it is certainly not the time of Solomon.

    The second part referring to a wall from Jerusalem supposedly dating to the time of Solomon is citing Leen Ritmeyer's blog. Leen Ritmeyer is an archaeologist who excavated in Jerusalem. Responding to a comment, this is what he writes:

    This picture shows that the stratigraphically four building constructions can be identified:



    1. The Byzantine Tower
    2. Excavating inside and below the Byz. tower, a Herodian mikveh was found that was built against the inside wall of the “Extra Tower” (not visible in the picture)
    3. The 8th century L-shaped “Extra Tower”
    4. The pre-8th century wall against which the “Extra Tower” was built, which may be Solomonic if that can be proved conclusively.

    Kenyon dated this L-shaped corner construction to the eighth century B.C. or earlier, but that does not necessarily mean that it is Solomonic. You compared it with the Phoenician masonry in Samaria, but that dates to the 9th century and is not Solomonic. A similar style masonry has been found in the sanctuary walls in Tel Dan, which is also post-Solomonic. I had suggested that there is an historical link between the “Extra Tower” and the masonry near the Golden Gate, but neither of these two constructions can be Solomonic.
    So no, he is not arguing that the wall dates to the time of Solomon.

    I would also add that the assumption that the wall is pre-Eighth Century is based on the fact that it predates the tower which Kenyon found Eighth Century material underneath the corner of. However, the material under the tower only establishes a terminus post quem for the tower (its earliest possible date). At Tel Aphek there is an Ottoman Period fortress. Immediately under the Ottoman Fortress is Late Bronze Age material. This is because the Turks leveled the ground before building. So by the same assumption, one could conclude an Ottoman Fortress dates to the Late Bronze Age, which would be ridiculous.

    In fact, there is good reason to believe this area was not fortified at all during the Iron IIA and that the wall along its eastern side was only built during the Eighth Century when Jerusalem expanded to the Western Hill (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2013).

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    major critics of the Low Chronology of Finkelstein like William Dever reject most of the history of the Pentuach, and if they reject the Low Chronology, is because the archeological data doesn't support Finkelstein.
    William Dever has been dead since 2002, so obviously none of his arguments are up to date regarding the radiocarbon results.

    In 2001, Dever objected to Finkelstein's argument that his excavation had dated the gate at Gezer by the biblical testimony:

    The pottery from this destruction layer included distinctive forms of red-slipped and slipped and hand burnished pottery, which have always been dated to the late 10th century… Thus, on commonly accepted ceramic grounds—not on naive acceptance of the Bible’s stories—we dated the Gezer walls and gates to the mid-to-late 10th century.
    But then lets look at what the excavation's pottery expert Holladay wrote on the topic in 1990:

    The key stratum seems to be Gezer Field III Phase UG3A, which is both very short and historically exceptionally well positioned. It comes after the Solomonic building period, richly documented by biblical and historical data and secured by comparative regional archaeological and architectural criteria combined with comparative pottery criteria.
    Whether Dever knew it or not, the pottery expert he was working with had dated the pottery by his assumption that the gates were part of the Solomonic building period. In any case, the ceramic horizons aren't in dispute, it's the absolute dating of them that is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    The Tel Dan Stele, which also involved the Kingdom Judea, does possibly refer to the kingdom of David indirectly, which doesn't support you claim.
    What claim of mine does it not support? I’d argue that it does support my claim that we have one find that corroborates the existence of David as the founder of the Judahite dynasty, considering that is the find I was referring to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    The Omri dynasty is the one's that the Assyrian's first would have encountered, so naturally they refer to Israel by that dynasty, the one they first met, even after the Omri dynasty was no more. The Assyrians would have been unlikely to have mention a dynasty that no longer existed by the time the Neo Assyrian empire first arose.
    I don’t disagree with this, but then it runs counter to your argument that the significant disparity in finds is merely a matter of luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    As for the Cylinder Inscription, I assume you mean the Cyrus Inscription, which as far as I know does not mention the House of Omri as you imply, nor does in refer to the dynasty of the House of Judea, so I don't see how that supports you claim of all the evidence for the House of Omri as opposed to David.
    No, I was talking about the Sargon II Cylinder Inscription which refers to “the extensive land of the House of Omri” (Fuchs 1994)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Why can't we just excavate the Temple Mount?
    There are probably interesting things to find under there, but I doubt there is much architecture or intact stratigraphy. It looks like Herod’s workers put a rectangle around the tel and then leveled off the top to fill in the gaps around the sides and corners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    That is the problem in Jerusalem, and much of Israel, there are existing buildings in a lot of the areas you would want to dig.
    That's not really true for the period we're talking about. Most of the tels in Israel are empty. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the tels were mostly abandoned in favor of nearby locations with more convenient water sources.

    Occasionally you have to deal with goats and various other f-wads:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by sumskilz; July 25, 2019 at 09:18 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  10. #10
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,243

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    The early Iron Age annoys me, due to the chaos of the preceding Late Bronze Age collapse and corroborative record keeping by surviving civilizations in the Near East and Mediterranean being spotty at best. Even the end date of the "Modified Conventional Chronology" outlined above falls right around the time of the beginnings of Archaic Greece, so it's not like we had any literate Greeks traveling around to mention cities and architecture in the Kingdom of Israel (or for that matter a historiography established by Herodotus in the Classical Age or Strabo's Geographica to provide intricate detail about the land and its settlements). Thank Yahweh/Jehovah that we can finally radiocarbon date the out of stuff stuck in the ing ground nowadays.

  11. #11

    Default Re: The Historicity of the Biblical Texts 1000-586 BCE

    According to the biblical texts, David and Solomon reigned from 1010 to 931 BCE. That is exactly forty years each on the Hebrew calendar. The number forty is sort of formulaic in the biblical texts, it’s either symbolic or simply means a long time. So this suggests these dates aren’t precise and that their reigns were before records were kept. In any case, this is the late Iron I and possibly overlapping the very early Iron IIA.

    Israel and Judah were both highland polities at their core, as would have been the United Monarchy if it is historical. In the late Iron I, there is no evidence of monumental architecture in the highlands, and no archaeological evidence of literacy, no inscriptions, etc. To the west of the highlands is the shephalah, the intermediary foothills between the highlands and the coastal plain. At this time, the area of Judah around Jerusalem was sparsely populated. To the south of Judah was even more sparsely populated. There is no clear archaeological indication that the Kingdom of Judah expanded into the shephalah until roughly the mid Ninth Century BCE.

    In contrast, the shephalah closest to Judah appears to have been dominated by Philistine Gath. Gath was a massive city with walls four meters thick. According to the biblical text, when David had his falling out with Saul he fled to Gath where he served Achish the King of Gath. According to the biblical text, and supported by archaeology, Hazael of Aram-Damascus destroyed Gath (c. 830 BCE). This is probably what paved the way for Judah’s expansion into the shephalah.

    Almost all known late proto-Canaanite and the slightly later "post proto-Canaanite" inscriptions have been found in the shephelah and the southern coastal plain, and are particularly concentrated in the region around Gath. The excavators at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the shephelah have presented the late proto-Canaanite ostracon they found there as the earliest Hebrew inscription. However, the epigrapher Christopher Rollston has pointed out that the script is neither Hebrew nor its precursor, and that there is nothing diagnostic about the text that would distinguish it as Hebrew rather than any other local related language/dialect. The ostracon from Qeiyafa may very well be Philstine-Canaanite, but the architecture and layout of Qeiyafa affiliates it archaeologically with sites on the Gibeon-Bethel Plateau in the highlands.

    There are something like thirty Iron I sites on the Gibeon-Bethel Plateau north of Jerusalem with casemate fortifications like those at Qeiyafa. These fortifications date to the late Iron I and early Iron IIA.

    The white circles are the largest of these Gibeon-Bethel sites:



    All these sites seem to have been nearly or completely abandoned at about the same time. That is right about the time of Shoshenq I's campaign in Canaan (c. 926 BCE).

    According to the engraved list on a wall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, these are the cities Shoshenq I attacked:



    Other than possibly Tirzah, the Gibeon-Bethel Plateau was the only region of the highlands Shoshenq bothered to attack. According to the biblical text, Shoshenq sieged Jerusalem and the King of Judah Rehoboam had to pay Shoshenq all the wealth of the Temple that Solomon had acquired in order to save the city. If true, Shoshenq apparently didn't consider it a big enough deal to brag about it. Some have argued that this story was invented to explain where all of Solomon's alleged wealth disappeared to. Others have argued that Jerusalem is missing in a damaged part of Shoshenq's inscription, although this explanation isn't considered very plausible by many due to it not fitting with the geographic layout of the inscription.

    These settlements on the Gibeon-Bethel Plateau may have been Saul’s kingdom. It’s notable that Qeiyafa is the furthest southwest outpost of these settlements which borders Philistia, because it is at Qeiyafa according to the biblical story of David and Goliath, that the Israelite army lined up to fight the Philistines of Gath.
    Last edited by sumskilz; July 28, 2019 at 12:34 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •