PDA

View Full Version : Israeli archeologists find taboo toilet at ancient Jewish shrine



shunyadragon
09-29-2016, 06:59 PM
Israeli archeologists find taboo toilet at ancient Jewish shrine

JERUSALEM – Israeli archaeologists have discovered a stone toilet while excavating a Jewish shrine at an ancient city gate, they said Wednesday, evidence that a biblical king tried to stamp out worship there.

King Hezekiah deliberately defiled the eighth century B.C. shrine at the door to the ancient city of Lachish, as part of a campaign to centralize Jewish ritual in Jerusalem, the Israel Antiquities Authority said.

“A toilet was installed in the holy of holies as the ultimate desecration of that place,” the IAA said in a statement.

“A stone fashioned in the shape of a chair with a hole in its center was found in the corner of the room.”

The authority said it was the first time an archaeological find confirmed the practice of installing a toilet to discourage worship, which is referred to in the biblical Book of Kings in an account of King Jehu’s fight against worshippers of the pagan deity Baal.

“And they demolished the pillar of Baal, and demolished the house of Baal, and made it a latrine to this day,” the statement quoted the Bible as saying.

But laboratory tests suggest the stone toilet at the Lachish gate was never used, the IAA said.

This showed its placement was “symbolic, after which the holy of holies was sealed until the site was destroyed.”

Lachish, about 40 km (25 miles) southwest of Jerusalem, was conquered by the Assyrians under King Sennacherib in 701 B.C.

The city gate was first located “decades ago,” the IAA said, but was only fully exposed in early 2016.

“The excavation revealed destruction layers in the wake of the defeat, including arrowheads and sling stones, indicative of the hand-to-hand combat that occurred in the city’s gate house,” it said.

Bill the Cat
09-30-2016, 09:35 AM
Israeli archeologists find taboo toilet at ancient Jewish shrine

JERUSALEM – Israeli archaeologists have discovered a stone toilet while excavating a Jewish shrine at an ancient city gate, they said Wednesday, evidence that a biblical king tried to stamp out worship there.

King Hezekiah deliberately defiled the eighth century B.C. shrine at the door to the ancient city of Lachish, as part of a campaign to centralize Jewish ritual in Jerusalem, the Israel Antiquities Authority said.

“A toilet was installed in the holy of holies as the ultimate desecration of that place,” the IAA said in a statement.

“A stone fashioned in the shape of a chair with a hole in its center was found in the corner of the room.”

The authority said it was the first time an archaeological find confirmed the practice of installing a toilet to discourage worship, which is referred to in the biblical Book of Kings in an account of King Jehu’s fight against worshippers of the pagan deity Baal.

“And they demolished the pillar of Baal, and demolished the house of Baal, and made it a latrine to this day,” the statement quoted the Bible as saying.

But laboratory tests suggest the stone toilet at the Lachish gate was never used, the IAA said.

This showed its placement was “symbolic, after which the holy of holies was sealed until the site was destroyed.”

Lachish, about 40 km (25 miles) southwest of Jerusalem, was conquered by the Assyrians under King Sennacherib in 701 B.C.

The city gate was first located “decades ago,” the IAA said, but was only fully exposed in early 2016.

“The excavation revealed destruction layers in the wake of the defeat, including arrowheads and sling stones, indicative of the hand-to-hand combat that occurred in the city’s gate house,” it said.

:rofl: I love when you post things that refute your earlier claims...



http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4651-Canaanite-Psalms&p=130539&viewfull=1#post130539
... There is no evidence that the Hebrews were a distinct culture and society prior to ~600 BCE...

Sparko
09-30-2016, 09:38 AM
NOW this thread gets interesting. :popcorn:

shunyadragon
09-30-2016, 11:55 AM
:rofl: I love when you post things that refute your earlier claims...

This discovery and information does not conclude that the Hebrew's were a distinct culture at any point in time. In fact, my previous description describes the Hebrew culture and language beginning to become distinct ~800 - 600 BCE. Prior to this time period the Hebrews lacked a distinctive language and by the evidence were a pastorial Canaanite tribes or tribe in the Hills of Judea.

Bill the Cat
09-30-2016, 11:59 AM
This discovery and information does not conclude that the Hebrew's were a distinct culture at any point in time. In fact, my previous description describes the Hebrew culture and language beginning to become distinct ~800 - 600 BCE.

Yeah... so indistinct that they had their own king... :duh:

shunyadragon
09-30-2016, 12:02 PM
Yeah... so indistinct that they had their own king... :duh:

Individual tribes wihin the region of course had heir own rulers, but a king? the evidence is all in on this claim. They did not even have a distinctive language before this time.

Bill the Cat
09-30-2016, 12:06 PM
Individual tribes wihin the region of course had heir own rulers, but a king? the evidence is all in on this claim. They did not even have a distinctive language before this time.

:rofl: From your OP:

King Hezekiah deliberately defiled the eighth century B.C. shrine at the door to the ancient city of Lachish, as part of a campaign to centralize Jewish ritual in Jerusalem, the Israel Antiquities Authority said.

Sparko
09-30-2016, 12:09 PM
This discovery and information does not conclude that the Hebrew's were a distinct culture at any point in time. In fact, my previous description describes the Hebrew culture and language beginning to become distinct ~800 - 600 BCE. Prior to this time period the Hebrews lacked a distinctive language and by the evidence were a pastorial Canaanite tribes or tribe in the Hills of Judea.So they had no distinctive culture, yet they had an organized religion and a king. um, yeah. pull the other one.

and you realize "Judea" was one of the tribes of Israel, right? Meaning if they had tribes and lands for those tribes, and a religion and a king, then they had a distinct language and they had a society and culture.

Cerebrum123
09-30-2016, 02:25 PM
Goal posts move in 3, 2, 1...

shunyadragon
10-01-2016, 07:37 AM
So they had no distinctive culture, yet they had an organized religion and a king. um, yeah. pull the other one.

and you realize "Judea" was one of the tribes of Israel, right? Meaning if they had tribes and lands for those tribes, and a religion and a king, then they had a distinct language and they had a society and culture.

First, read again, the Hills of Judea refers to a geographic region, and not a tribe. Reading comprehension a problem here?

shunyadragon
10-01-2016, 07:52 AM
:rofl: From your OP:

King Hezekiah deliberately defiled the eighth century B.C. shrine at the door to the ancient city of Lachish, as part of a campaign to centralize Jewish ritual in Jerusalem, the Israel Antiquities Authority said.

You realize my references in the past to the Hebrew tribes not have a distinctive culture and language was prior to the period ~900 - 600 BCE. In this period the Hebrews did develop a distinctive language culture, and rulers called kings.

Bill the Cat
10-01-2016, 08:03 AM
You realize my references in the past to the Hebrew tribes not have a distinctive culture and language was prior to the period ~900 - 600 BCE. In this period the Hebrews did develop a distinctive language culture, and rulers called kings.

That is a lie Frank. Your claim was that they didn't have a distinct culture until ~600BC

Spartacus
10-01-2016, 08:41 AM
This discovery and information does not conclude that the Hebrew's were a distinct culture at any point in time. In fact, my previous description describes the Hebrew culture and language beginning to become distinct ~800 - 600 BCE. Prior to this time period the Hebrews lacked a distinctive language and by the evidence were a pastorial Canaanite tribes or tribe in the Hills of Judea.


You realize my references in the past to the Hebrew tribes not have a distinctive culture and language was prior to the period ~900 - 600 BCE. In this period the Hebrews did develop a distinctive language culture, and rulers called kings.

What was that Cerebrum said about moving goalposts?

Cerebrum123
10-01-2016, 10:33 AM
What was that Cerebrum said about moving goalposts?

I suspect either "Air ball!" or "Duck, Bob, and Weave" are around the corner as well. :yes:

Adrift
10-01-2016, 12:24 PM
I suspect either "Air ball!" or "Duck, Bob, and Weave" are around the corner as well. :yes:

My favorites are "splitting frog hairs", and "the sky is Carolina blue on a clear 4th of July at noon."

shunyadragon
10-01-2016, 02:15 PM
That is a lie Frank. Your claim was that they didn't have a distinct culture until ~600BC

Not true, this has been covered in many threads. It is true that there is no distinct Hebrew language before ~700 - 600 BCE. It has always been that there is no sudden date that Hebrews became a distinct culture and kingdom.

shunyadragon
10-01-2016, 02:19 PM
What was that Cerebrum said about moving goalposts?

I consider these approximate dates like the historians propose, please notice what"~" means.

Bill the Cat
10-01-2016, 02:20 PM
Not true, this has been covered in many threads. It is true that there is no distinct Hebrew language before ~700 - 600 BCE. It has always been that there is no sudden date that Hebrews became a distinct culture and kingdom.

You posted a thread about a distinct people, under the rule of a distinct King, who defiled another distinct people's cultic worship center well before ~600 BC. QED

Spartacus
10-01-2016, 06:44 PM
I consider these approximate dates like the historians propose, please notice what"~" means.

Why exactly did you change your approximation from ~800 to ~900? Did you read another historian between yesterday afternoon and this morning that convinced you about this even broader window of time?

robrecht
10-01-2016, 07:06 PM
More importantly, why did he change his estimate from from ~600 BCE to ~900--600 BCE?

Spartacus
10-01-2016, 07:15 PM
More importantly, why did he change his estimate from from ~600 BCE to ~900--600 BCE?

Do you have a link? Unless I see the post where he said 600, I can't hold him accountable for it.

robrecht
10-01-2016, 07:22 PM
Do you have a link? Unless I see the post where he said 600, I can't hold him accountable for it.
Bill posted the link earlier this thread.

Spartacus
10-01-2016, 07:33 PM
Bill posted the link earlier this thread.

Ah, thanks. Found it :doh:

But yeah, I'm almost as eager for his explanation as to why his arguments have changed as I am to hear why Trump changed his mind about Obama's birth certificate.

shunyadragon
10-01-2016, 09:13 PM
Why exactly did you change your approximation from ~800 to ~900? Did you read another historian between yesterday afternoon and this morning that convinced you about this even broader window of time?

"~" indicates approximate dates of the transition period not exact dates. Your splitting frog hairs. This period ~900 - 800 BCE is when Israel is described as being described as a defeated "people," and a Paleo Hebrew/Canaanite language.

This period up to a ~800 - 600 BCE is when the first distinctive written language that may be identified as Hebrew. After ~800 - 600 BCE the Hebrews have a clear culture, language and identity, and the result is the Hebrew scripture.



More importantly, why did he change his estimate from from ~600 BCE to ~900--600 BCE?

Not a change.

Spartacus
10-01-2016, 09:22 PM
"~" indicates transition period not exact dates.

A 100 year addition to the timeline is significant.


Your splitting frog hairs.

This time the point for prediction goes to adrift.


This period ~900-800 BCE is when Israel is described as being described as a defeated "people."

This period up to a ~800 - 600 CE is when the first written language that may be identified as Hebrew.

A defeated people but not a distinct culture? I think you should provide some more specific definitions here.

shunyadragon
10-01-2016, 09:36 PM
A 100 year addition to the timeline is significant.[quote]

No, not in estimating when there is scanty and limited evidence. There are written records as with the Ugarites, Canaanites and Babylonians. This is a period of transition from pastoral Canaanite tribes to Hebrew kingdom or nation

[quote]
A defeated people but not a distinct culture? I think you should provide some more specific definitions here.

Evidence shows they were a Canaanite Pastoral tribe or tribes mostly in the Hills of Judea that practiced Ugarite/Canaanite polytheism.

rogue06
10-02-2016, 06:11 AM
"~" indicates approximate dates of the transition period not exact dates. Your splitting frog hairs. This period ~900 - 800 BCE is when Israel is described as being described as a defeated "people," and a Paleo Hebrew/Canaanite language.

This period up to a ~800 - 600 BCE is when the first distinctive written language that may be identified as Hebrew. After ~800 - 600 BCE the Hebrews have a clear culture, language and identity, and the result is the Hebrew scripture.



Not a change.
This round awarded to Adrift



My favorites are "splitting frog hairs", and "the sky is Carolina blue on a clear 4th of July at noon."

:teeth:

ETA: I see Spart already awarded it

shunyadragon
10-02-2016, 07:51 AM
This round awarded to Adrift




:teeth:

ETA: I see Spart already awarded it

More favorites for the cheer leaders in the peanut gallery with no constructive responses. Your cheer leader outfits are a little tight.

:badger::cheshire:

rogue06
10-02-2016, 05:27 PM
More favorites for the cheer leaders in the peanut gallery with no constructive responses. Your cheer leader outfits are a little tight.

:badger::cheshire:
You're just jealous that I still have the legs to pull it off :razz:

robrecht
10-02-2016, 06:20 PM
Not a change.
You really do not see the difference in these two statements of yours?

A "... There is no evidence that the Hebrews were a distinct culture and society prior to ~600 BCE. ..."

B "... the Hebrew tribes [did] not have a distinctive culture and language ]was[ prior to the period ~900 - 600 BCE.. ..."

Aside from the obvious difference of three centuries between "~600 BCE" and "~900--600 BCE," do we really need to repeat your past failure to understand some of the basics of the Canaanite and Hebrew alphabet, scripts, and languages, none of which you even understand but nonetheless ignorantly pontificate upon?

Sparko
10-03-2016, 07:18 AM
First, read again, the Hills of Judea refers to a geographic region, and not a tribe. Reading comprehension a problem here? "Judea" actually refers to Judah, the TRIBE and SON of Israel. So the tribe had to exist for the name to exist. And if there was an actual KING then there was an actual government and society and language, etc.

You are desperately trying and failing here Shuny. miserably. But then everyone knows you never, ever admit you are wrong. You just double down and make yourself look even more foolish.

shunyadragon
10-06-2016, 02:52 PM
You really do not see the difference in these two statements of yours?

A "... There is no evidence that the Hebrews were a distinct culture and society prior to ~600 BCE. ..."

B "... the Hebrew tribes [did] not have a distinctive culture and language ]was[ prior to the period ~900 - 600 BCE.. ..."

Aside from the obvious difference of three centuries between "~600 BCE" and "~900--600 BCE," do we really need to repeat your past failure to understand some of the basics of the Canaanite and Hebrew alphabet, scripts, and languages, none of which you even understand but nonetheless ignorantly pontificate upon?

No problem, the period of ~900--600 BCE represents the period of the evolution of the Hebrew written language and culture from the Canaanite /Ugarit/Phoenician culture and language. By ~600 the language and culture evolved to be distinctly different from the antecedents. The older writings, crude inscriptions of calendars, are variable in their interpretation and strongly resemble Phoenician text. Scholars do not agree to the extent these are Hebrew. The best they could be is primitive paleo-Hebrew. The problem is there only a scant few examples before the silver scroll find.

Differences in the interpretation of some of the scant examples of early writing clearly demonstrate the problem.


This example raises an interesting question regarding Christopher Rollston’s methodology of caution: What is more speculative—to assume that a small Late Bronze Akkadian tablet uncovered in Jerusalem might be an Amarna-type letter (of which we have more than 300 examples) or that Khirbet Qeiyafa is associated with the name of the family of the high priest Caiaphas? Apparently, “caution” is something one may demand only from others, not from himself.

Another aspect of Christopher Rollston’s “caution” is to not really say much. In his BAR article on the earliest Hebrew inscription, previously cited, all he can say about the four inscriptions he considers is that they are not Hebrew. Is that all that can be said about the four inscriptions from Khirbet Qeiyafa, Gezer, Tel Zayit and Izbet Zartah—that they are not definitely Hebrew? Should we now expect other articles in this same genre, in which Christopher Rollston will argue that the four inscriptions involved are not definitely Canaanite, not definitely Philistine, not definitely Phoenician, not definitely Moabite, not definitely Greek and not definitely Latin?

In my judgment, the four inscriptions Christopher Rollston considers in his BAR article tell us about the language used by the local population at these sites during the earlier part of the Iron Age, probably an earlier phase of the Hebrew language, in which the great Biblical poems, like the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) and David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1), were written.

A clear and consistent Hebrew language widely used would be the most important sign of a distinct separate culture and scripture. The early written languages before this are at best described as transitional pcitographic paleo-Hebrew.

robrecht
10-07-2016, 06:11 AM
No problem, the period of ~900--600 BCE represents the period of the evolution of the Hebrew written language and culture from the Canaanite /Ugarit/Phoenician culture and language. By ~600 the language and culture evolved to be distinctly different from the antecedents. The older writings, crude inscriptions of calendars, are variable in their interpretation and strongly resemble Phoenician text. Scholars do not agree to the extent these are Hebrew. The best they could be is primitive paleo-Hebrew. The problem is there only a scant few examples before the silver scroll find.

Differences in the interpretation of some of the scant examples of early writing clearly demonstrate the problem.


This example raises an interesting question regarding Christopher Rollston’s methodology of caution: What is more speculative—to assume that a small Late Bronze Akkadian tablet uncovered in Jerusalem might be an Amarna-type letter (of which we have more than 300 examples) or that Khirbet Qeiyafa is associated with the name of the family of the high priest Caiaphas? Apparently, “caution” is something one may demand only from others, not from himself.

Another aspect of Christopher Rollston’s “caution” is to not really say much. In his BAR article on the earliest Hebrew inscription, previously cited, all he can say about the four inscriptions he considers is that they are not Hebrew. Is that all that can be said about the four inscriptions from Khirbet Qeiyafa, Gezer, Tel Zayit and Izbet Zartah—that they are not definitely Hebrew? Should we now expect other articles in this same genre, in which Christopher Rollston will argue that the four inscriptions involved are not definitely Canaanite, not definitely Philistine, not definitely Phoenician, not definitely Moabite, not definitely Greek and not definitely Latin?

In my judgment, the four inscriptions Christopher Rollston considers in his BAR article tell us about the language used by the local population at these sites during the earlier part of the Iron Age, probably an earlier phase of the Hebrew language, in which the great Biblical poems, like the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) and David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1), were written.

A clear and consistent Hebrew language widely used would be the most important sign of a distinct separate culture and scripture. The early written languages before this are at best described as transitional pcitographic paleo-Hebrew.
It appears that you have wisely avoided repeating much of your previous ridiculous misunderstading of the Hebrew alphabets. Good. In addition to the difficulty of the sparseness of examples, do not reify distinctions like proto-Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew. The simple fact of the matter is that all languages evolve. Anyone who has studied Hebrew can easily understand Moabitic, all the more easily if they have also studied even a tiny bit of Arabic or Aramaic. And this is decidedly not pictographic, by the way. A little more reading o your source will allow you to see that although 'Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century BCE, the Hebrew language existed well before then'.

shunyadragon
10-10-2016, 10:20 AM
It appears that you have wisely avoided repeating much of your previous ridiculous misunderstading of the Hebrew alphabets. Good. In addition to the difficulty of the sparseness of examples, do not reify distinctions like proto-Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew. The simple fact of the matter is that all languages evolve. Anyone who has studied Hebrew can easily understand Moabitic, all the more easily if they have also studied even a tiny bit of Arabic or Aramaic. And this is decidedly not pictographic, by the way. A little more reading o your source will allow you to see that although 'Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century BCE, the Hebrew language existed well before then'.

Yes written languages evolve in all cultures, but there comes a point where the written language becomes established and changes little beyond that and the average person can read the language from that point on. Chinese is a classic example, and I can easily read written Chinese back to 1100 BCE. Actually in reading the earliest Hebrew texts the scholars are not in agreement on how to read them.

The highlighted is a significant reason why I start the evolution of the Hebrew language to be ~900 BCE. I consider the consistent written language a more distinctive feature of and advanced culture than the spoken language. It is true spoken languages are very likely older then the written language in most cultures, and older then civilization itself.

The scant evidence of written text is a very real issue, and the religious practices does demonstrate that before this period the Hebrews were a subculture of the Ugarit/Canaanite/Phoenician cultures. Trade is the dominant reason that establishes the sophistication and widespread use written language, Unlike the Ugarit/Canaanite/Phoenician cultures, the Hebrew culture was a pastoral culture mostly in the Hills of Judea prior to about ~600 - 500 BCE.

Kbertsche
10-10-2016, 02:55 PM
Have you guys already discussed the inscription from about 1000 BC reported here (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/precursor-to-the-paleo-hebrew-script-discovered-in-jerusalem/)?
During the 2012 excavations at the southern wall of the Temple Mount, archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered an inscription with the earliest alphabet letters ever found in Jerusalem. The inscription—carved on a storage jar—is written in the Proto-Canaanite script and dates to the 11th or 10th century B.C.E. In “The New Jerusalem Inscription—So What?” in the May/June 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, author Alan Millard provides a paleographic assessment of the inscription and explains how these earliest alphabet letters from Jerusalem can illuminate the scope of literacy during the time of David and Solomon.
I've also met an archaeologist who thinks he has identified very early Hebrew writing on Egyptian stelle a few centuries before this, but his theories are much more controversial.

shunyadragon
10-12-2016, 06:33 AM
Have you guys already discussed the inscription from about 1000 BC reported here (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/precursor-to-the-paleo-hebrew-script-discovered-in-jerusalem/)?
During the 2012 excavations at the southern wall of the Temple Mount, archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered an inscription with the earliest alphabet letters ever found in Jerusalem. The inscription—carved on a storage jar—is written in the Proto-Canaanite script and dates to the 11th or 10th century B.C.E. In “The New Jerusalem Inscription—So What?” in the May/June 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, author Alan Millard provides a paleographic assessment of the inscription and explains how these earliest alphabet letters from Jerusalem can illuminate the scope of literacy during the time of David and Solomon.
I've also met an archaeologist who thinks he has identified very early Hebrew writing on Egyptian stelle a few centuries before this, but his theories are much more controversial.

The Proto-Canaanite is acknowledged as the origins of pre-Hebrew, but not Hebrew, and relationship with the more Dominant Ugarit/Canaanite earlier in Hebrew history.

The Egyptian link is a stretch, and does indicate an influence of Egyptian on the later pictographic symbols in early pre-Hebrew writing.