Archaeology Thread

[Blake Reas]

Hey guys,

I am starting this thread to discuss archaeology. I want you guys to give me some topics that you think are interesting and then we can start discussing it.

I find it interesting that Amenhotep, came up with Monotheism after the traditional date for the Exodus! If you want to discuss it we can.

Another intersting discussion would be the date of the Exodus!

The Israelite Stela

The Tel Dan inscription is interesting because it made fools out of the minimalist position in Archaeology, they said David did not exist but it claims other wise! :smile:

If you have anything else you would like to discuss just holler! I am also going to try and get Gray Pilgrim in here since he is pretty knowledgable about the OT.


In Christ,
Blake

[Captain Ochre]

The exodus-related material sounds like an excellent starting point. I would expect that new issues will spawn themselves as discussion gets underway!
Thanks, Blake!

[Blake Reas]

I will post some more tonight while I watch my Indiana Hoosiers hopefully beat Illinois. I am looking to discuss the if, when, and historical reliability of the Exodus accounts. Hopefully this starts discussion in something other then Creation vs. Evolution it starts to get old after awhile.

[Vorkosigan]

02-25-2003 @ 04:08 AM
Blake Reas:


The Tel Dan inscription is interesting because it made fools out of the minimalist position in Archaeology, they said David did not exist but it claims other wise! :smile:

In Christ,
Blake

Tel Dan does not demonstrate the existence of David at all. See any one of the minimalist writings on the topic; for example, the discussion in The Mythic Past by Thompson. The fragment reads ....K BYTDWD which some took immediately to mean [mele]k byt.dwd = King of the House of David. BYT is also commonly translated "temple" and the piece may well refer to "Temple of the Beloved" which is what "David" means, after all, and is actually used as a divine title on the Mesha stele, not as a personal name. In any case, even if you took the ...K for MELEK=King, at most you have historical evidence for the House of David, not of any David himself. Several scholars have also argued that the fragments are forgeries, a very real possibility in archaeology wherever nationalism and history intersect.

Vorkosigan

[Blake Reas]

02-25-2003 @ 01:10 PM
Vorkosigan:



Tel Dan does not demonstrate the existence of David at all. See any one of the minimalist writings on the topic; for example, the discussion in The Mythic Past by Thompson. The fragment reads ....K BYTDWD which some took immediately to mean [mele]k byt.dwd = King of the House of David. BYT is also commonly translated "temple" and the piece may well refer to "Temple of the Beloved" which is what "David" means, after all, and is actually used as a divine title on the Mesha stele, not as a personal name. In any case, even if you took the ...K for MELEK=King, at most you have historical evidence for the House of David, not of any David himself. Several scholars have also argued that the fragments are forgeries, a very real possibility in archaeology wherever nationalism and history intersect.

Vorkosigan
How is House of David not evidence of David himself? Who are the some who took it as mele as King of the house of David?

[Pilgrim]

Having seen the Tel Dan inscription, having visited the site and having heard a lot about it at Harvard I think there is a very real chance it is talking of David of Scripture. Can we ever be 100% sure? No.

A good friend of mine, when interviewing at Harvard for her entrance into the PhD program, was asked what was the most significant find in Archeology in the past 100 years.

She had just returned from Isreal and mentioned the Stele from Tel Dan. Many of them were as yet unfamiliar with it and her answer was what ultimately got her into the program.

It's very cool stuff but of course the whole Tel Dan site is just very cool for it's alter site.

The other piece that really caught my attention when I was in Israel was the stone found at Ceasarea by the Sea that made reference to Pontious Pilot. It had been plundered from a temple for use in the coloseum there.

[J. J. Ramsey]

Anybody got any links to articles on that Tel Dan inscription?

BTW, I have definitely heard of it, but don't know that much about it.

[Pilgrim]

02-25-2003 @ 06:28 PM
J. J. Ramsey:

Anybody got any links to articles on that Tel Dan inscription?

BTW, I have definitely heard of it, but don't know that much about it.

Check this sight out http://www.otal.umd.edu/~knobloch/dan.htm

Pretty good stuff and a full translation.

[Blake Reas]

02-25-2003 @ 01:10 PM
Vorkosigan:



Tel Dan does not demonstrate the existence of David at all. See any one of the minimalist writings on the topic; for example, the discussion in The Mythic Past by Thompson. The fragment reads ....K BYTDWD which some took immediately to mean [mele]k byt.dwd = King of the House of David. BYT is also commonly translated "temple" and the piece may well refer to "Temple of the Beloved" which is what "David" means, after all, and is actually used as a divine title on the Mesha stele, not as a personal name. In any case, even if you took the ...K for MELEK=King, at most you have historical evidence for the House of David, not of any David himself. Several scholars have also argued that the fragments are forgeries, a very real possibility in archaeology wherever nationalism and history intersect.

Vorkosigan

Ok I have just come back from the library and read some things on the Tel Dan Stela. In your last sentence I find it funny that you reveal to conspiracy! I found ONE article on the Internet that claimed that. THe books and articles I read to day by Lemche (the for most minimalist from the "Copenhagen School") did not even mention forgery!

The next thing I would like to add since you did point out presuppositions in your unconvincing discussion. I have a quote from the head archaeologist from Tel Dan defending himself.

I cannot refrain from thinking that there is also a little bit of anti-Israel or, if you like, anti-Semitism in some of the anti-Biblical archaeology people.** After all, modern Israel is reestablishing, in a way, the kingdom of David and Solomon. If there was no David and there was no Solomon, as some of them contend, there's nothing to reestablish. Look what happened to the inscription we found at Tel Dan mentioning Beth David, the House, or Dynasty, of David. The Hebrew consonants are clear—bet, yod, tav, dalet, vav, dalet. Anybody who sees this can only think that it's Beth David, House of David. It also clearly mentions "king of Israel"; nobody can deny this.* When [Harvard professor] Larry Stager read what the so-called Biblical minimalists were saying against the House of David inscription, he said, "It's like saying today 150 years after Lincoln, there was no Lincoln." This inscription dates to less than 150 years after David. It was written by an Aramean king who says he killed the king of Israel and killed the king of the House of David, the king of Judah. Those who deny there was a David take the consonants dalet, vav, dalet and say the D and the V and the D represent the word dod, "uncle" or "lover"; or even doad, which is a big vessel.**

Taken from: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_AO/barso99biran.html

Like I always say the minimalist are just as bias maybe more so! Also it is a well known fact that the minimalist position are not the most knowledgable kids on the block!

As J.K. Hoffemeire notes:

One reason for the disparity between the historical maximalist and minimalist is that the former tend to be trained in Near Estarn languages, history, and archaeology with the Hebrew Bible as a cognate discipline, whereas the latter are largely trained in Old Testament studies in the nineteenth-century European mold and treat cognate languages and sources as ancillary rather than central to their discipline

I also have a bone to pick with their methdology, but that is for a later post!

Also Lemche has devoted himself to showing the historical worthless nature of the OT, with this in mind Philips Long notes this:
LEmche pursues his aim unflinchingly, even when faced with such dauting counterevidence as recently discovered Tel Dan inscription with it's mention of the "house of David." Lemche's approache to this piece of evidence understandably embarrasing to the minmalist scholars appears to assume that it can be nullified simply by raising questions or presenting speculative scenarios of how the evidence, the realia, might be taken in some way other than at face value.

Long goes on to say that it is up to individual scholars as to the interpretation of the artifact he make the point that those who already presuppose that David and Solomon DID not exist (yourself and Lemche) will never believe the evidence. THat proabably explains why the majority of Archaeologist say the inscription does in fact say "house of David."

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. I am going to e-mail Dr. Block at the Seminary I attend who is one of the top OT scholars to ask him for assistance on the Hebrew since I am not equipped to comment on that area.


All other quites taken from "Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of "Biblical Israel" Eerdmans publishing company. V.Phillips Long, David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham Editors.

[Blake Reas]

Here is the inscription and the ACTUAL interpretation,

In Christ,
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Here is the interpretation.
In Christ,
Blake

1[....] and out [...]
2. [...] my father went up [ against him when]
he fought at [...]
3. And my father lay down, he went to his [anscestors](viz. became sick and died)
And the King of I[s......
4. rael entered previously in my father's land.
[And] Hadad made me King.
5. And Hadad went in front of me,
[and] I departed from [the] seven [....]
6. So of my kingdom, and I slew [seven]ty kin[gs],
who harnessed thou]sands of cha-]
7. riots and thousands of horsemen
[I killed Jeho)ram son of [Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son
[Jehoram kin-]
9. g of the House of David. And I set
[their towns into ruins and turned]
10. their land into [desolation.....]
11.other[...........and Jehu ru-]
12. led over Is[rael...... and I laid]
13.siege upon [...........]

I got this tanslation from a arcaheology website, I will post the addy when I find it.

[Blake Reas]

Actual picture:


In Christ,
Blake
:cheers:

[Vorkosigan]

[QUOTE]02-25-2003 @ 04:35 PM
Blake Reas:
How is House of David not evidence of David himself?[/b]

Does "House of Windsor" demonstrate the existence of a person named Windsor? Which way does causation run here? Was David invented as the mythical founder of the House of David, or did he found the house and give his name to it? Until we get more solid historical vectors, it will be difficult to say.

Who are the some who took it as mele as King of the house of David?

<shrug> Evidently many did, for you can often see it presented that way in discussions of it. For example, this site takes it as a given:

http://www.otal.umd.edu/~knobloch/dan.htm

Here is Garbini's argument that it is a fraud:
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/tel_dan.htm

I am agnostic on the fraud claim about Tel Dan. But several prominent scholars have questions about the recent spate of finds...

http://www.sbl-site.org/Newsletter/02_2003/Silberman.html

The situation in Israel, where nationalism and archaeology intersect and reinforce each other, reminds me of the situation in Japanese archaeology a few years ago, when one man succeeded in planting forgeries at scores of sites across Japan, and in China currently.

Vorkosigan

[Pilgrim]

Interesting that a quote from Stager is included. He was a prof of mine. He is known in the field to be less than organized in field archeology but very knowledgable in the classroom (if a little boring) This is probably better in another thread but the first sentence he uttered in my History of the ANE to Alexander class was "There is no room for a discussion of theology in History or Archeology." That statement so betrayed his bias and is so untrue that I had a hard time listening to him for several classes.

Pilgrim

[Vorkosigan]

[QUOTE]02-26-2003 @ 01:32 AM
Blake Reas:
Ok I have just come back from the library and read some things on the Tel Dan Stela. In your last sentence I find it funny that you reveal to conspiracy! I found ONE article on the Internet that claimed that. THe books and articles I read to day by Lemche (the for most minimalist from the &quot;Copenhagen School&quot;) did not even mention forgery![/b]

The number of articles on the net is irrelevant. One is enough if its arguments are good. As I said, I am agnostic on fraud. Some things about it are suggestive, others are not. Nor are the minimalists united on the issue. Davies and Whitlam believe it is authentic, Lemche thinks it is probably a fraud.

The next thing I would like to add since you did point out presuppositions in your unconvincing discussion. I have a quote from the head archaeologist from Tel Dan defending himself.

Note that he launched the discussion by broadly hinting that people who disagree with him must be anti-Semites. Then the archaeologist addresses non-points -- the minimalists do not claim that the letters say something else like "uncle". He also says the text clearly mentions "King of Israel" as if that were disputed, but that is not a point at issue.

g goes on to say that it is up to individual scholars as to the interpretation of the artifact he make the point that those who already presuppose that David and Solomon DID not exist (yourself and Lemche) will never believe the evidence. THat proabably explains why the majority of Archaeologist say the inscription does in fact say &quot;house of David.&quot;

Like I said, a non-point. The minimalists do not deny that the inscription says "House of David." The argument is over what that phrase means.

In any case, I have no strong investment here. Just pointing out that the issues are not as clear-cut as you make them out to be, and that the minimalists have powerful arguments on their side. Davies locates himself in the mainline of scholarship here (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Minimalism.htm) in an article which gives his POV on the controversy. As he says:

"The point at issue is not whether an Israel ever existed, but rather whether the historical ancient Israel was like the portrait in the Bible."

Vorkosigan

[Pilgrim]

02-26-2003 @ 09:56 AM
Vorkosigan:
Does &quot;House of Windsor&quot; demonstrate the existence of a person named Windsor? Vorkosigan

Well, yes it does. At least an original ancestor with that name.

[Vorkosigan]

The House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when the name was adopted as the British Royal Family's official name by a proclamation of King George V, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It remains the family name of the current Royal Family. Windsor is a place name.

[Pilgrim]

Well there you have it. Thanks for the info. It seems like in history that is the course a lot of names took. That is, the family name comes from the geographic circumstance. But why was the place names "windsor" to begin with?

Where did the name "Stewart" come from? I had thought that prior to "Windsor" the Royal family was Stewart?

[The Curtmudgeon]

02-26-2003 @ 04:46 PM
Pilgrim:
Where did the name &quot;Stewart&quot; come from? I had thought that prior to &quot;Windsor&quot; the Royal family was Stewart?

We can get into a whole deep 'nother issue about British royalty, but in short the current House of Windsor was originally the House of Saxe-Gotha-Coburg; it became that when Victoria married her cousin Albert Duke of SGC. However, during WWI it was decided (probably quite rightly) that having a family name so closely connected with "the enemy" Germany was a Bad Idea, so Vicky's son Edward, by that time king himself, took the name of his (primary) residence, Windsor Castle, in place of the original name.

Prior to the House of SGC, the reigning family was the House of Hanover, which became monarchs by the election of Parliament over the prior House of Stewart (though usually spelt Stuart from Mary Queen of Scots on, Stewart is the original Scots spelling). House of Hanover changed over to House of SGC by marriage as I mention (the "house name" is a patriarchal thing--Vicky was still House of Hanover before she married, but once married her husband's house became the official house, even though Albert was never King of England).

House of Stewart/Stuart was driven from the throne because of being Catholic and/or Catholic sympathisers, so at least I brought this back around to a religious point! :)

But Vork's point about House of David/House of Hanover is a complete red herring unless he can show that Israel and/or other contemporary ANE cultures followed medieval/later European conventions in naming their royal families. All the actual evidence is that they used actual, real people, and most dynasties back then didn't last long enough to get away with creating mythological ancestors--wars, palace coups and just dying without heirs has a tendency to break up even the most famous dynasties in usually a couple of centuries or less.

The (too many families spoil the monarchy) Curtmudgeon

[Pilgrim]

Thanks for that info. And for the insight onto the distinction between English and ANE practices.

[Sera Sixwings]

I'm sorry to make my first post such a naive one, but what does Tel Dan have to do with the archaeology of the Exodus?

(Great topic, by the way, what with Passover coming in a few weeks.)

[ edited for spelling - S6W ]

[J. J. Ramsey]

02-27-2003 @ 01:06 PM
Sera Sixwings:

I'm sorry to make my first post such a naive one, but what does Ted Dan have to do with the archaeology of the Exodus?


(That should be "Tel Dan," not "Ted Dan.")

AFAIK, it shouldn't have much to do with it, I'd think. David himself was born after the Exodus, and the stele apparently refers to a king far along in the line of David, born some generations after David himself.

[Sera Sixwings]

Thanks. It should also be "Passover", but I'm a notoriously sloppy typist. :frown: Sorry.

Anyway, what archaeological evidence is there for the Exodus?

[Pilgrim]

Probably the most significant thing fro Tel Dan, other than the stele, was the alter that was placed there and the 'cult' that grew up around it.

[Sera Sixwings]

[02-27-2003 @ 07:47 PM] - Pilgrim:

Probably the most significant thing fro Tel Dan, other than the stele, was the alter that was placed there and the 'cult' that grew up around it. I thought that they reused stone back then, and that the Stele was found, not in its original location, but as part of a wall. As far as "the 'cult' that grew up around it", I'm not at all sure that anyone knows where "it" was originally located. Oh, well.

All of this still leaves Exodus archaeology unaddressed, if not totally avoided. :huh:

[Pilgrim]

What I was referring to was an Alter that was set up at Dan and was used used instead of the Temple at Jerusalem. There was a Bull cult there at the time.

[Sera Sixwings]

[02-27-2003 @ 08:44 PM] - Pilgrim:

What I was referring to was an Alter that was set up at Dan and was used used instead of the Temple at Jerusalem. There was a Bull cult there at the time. Thanks. It's my understanding that Biran's group believe that they have found Dan's Bamah (high place of ritual), but I was unaware that the site had produced evidence of a re-instituted Canaanite cult. I'd really appreciate any archeological references that you might have.

And, of course, I'd be interested in archaeological evidence for the Exodus.

[Pilgrim]

Well I don't know about "high place" because Dan really isn't all that high. but I have been to there and seen the remaines of the alter site. they have reconstructed part of it but very poorly.

I'll see what I can dig up in terms of links.

[Sera Sixwings]

Thanks!

With regards to the Exodus, is there a Scripture-based consensus on its date?

[Sauron]

02-24-2003 @ 08:08 PM
Blake Reas:[/b]

The Tel Dan inscription is interesting because it made fools out of the minimalist position in Archaeology, they said David did not exist but it claims other wise! :smile:


Actually, the Tel Dan stele doesn't give conclusive evidence for a particular person existing. Many peoples trace their ancestry back to a single individual who is themselves mythological. Rome traces its ancestry back to twins Romulus and Remus, who were supposedly raised by a she-wolf in the wild. And the royal house of the Svear (pre-christian Sweden) traced their ancestry back to Yng, an incarnation of the god Freyr. They royal line was called the "Ynglingar", or Ynglings in English.

So the stele *might* indicate a real person named David. But then again, it might not. It's just not conclusive.

[Blake Reas]

"The point at issue is not whether an Israel ever existed, but rather whether the historical ancient Israel was like the portrait in the Bible."

I think this debate between Maximalist and Minimalist goes back to the Documentary Hypothesis. We should probably have started there :thumb: !

The article you sent me just confirmed what I thought about the minimalist position. They make statements like "we are not trying to prove the bible." So they think that gets them off the hook and hides there presuppositions but later on in the article he says he thinks the Bible is an irrelevant book!

My reasons for thinking that most of the biblical writings were composed in the Persian period by urban intellectuals are manifold
This quote from Davies I find funny, considering that modern Pentateuch studies are in a state of Crisis! They start with the assumption that there is no way there is really historical information in the text and if there is any then it is VERY little. I would advise you to read about their lack of knowledge of languages and other important areas again, that have to do with constructing a account of Israel!

In Christ,
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Here is what a Archaeologist said about Davies and his theory of the Biblical Documents being dated to the Persian Period:

The issue that Davies seems to ignore is the presence in the biblical text of a good many indicators of pre-exilic data that were not likely to have been invented in Persian times. It is all well and good to claim that the biblical text was shaped in its final form in post-exilic times, but how much of it reflects pre-exilic memories or actual information? This issue requires historical critical argumentation and not polemics. A fair approach to this issue would require Davies to offer a detailed examination and assessment of the archaeological data presented by Dever in his most recent book.http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Comments_Davies_Dever.htm


Like I said the minimalist positon ignores other evidence in the Bible that says certain parts are younger than Persian times! I would go as far as to argue for Mosiac Authorship of a substantial amount of the Pent. but that is another story.

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. I have enjoyed are discussion! You actually got me thinking about the Tel Dan inscription(I do believe it refers to David even more so)!
:cheers:

[Sauron]

Yes, but your archaeologist is Dever.

A former fundamentalist Protestant, son of a conservative minister, attended conservative church school, and who later converted to Judaism. I would say beware of the definite possibility of bias here.

Just curious: are you familiar with Silverman's analysis in The Bible Unearthed?

[Blake Reas]

02-28-2003 @ 06:48 AM
Sauron:

Yes, but your archaeologist is Dever.

A former fundamentalist Protestant, son of a conservative minister, attended conservative church school, and who later converted to Judaism. I would say beware of the definite possibility of bias here.

Just curious: are you familiar with Silverman's analysis in The Bible Unearthed?

Sorry Dever is not my favorite Archaeologist! You have also misread the article. Dever did not say that, it was Norman K. Gottwald! Here go back and read slowly the Author's name. Also I am familiar that Israel Finkelstein holds to a rather excentric view of when the Bible was written! Oh yeah some of Dever's stuff is alright but I would much rather read a book by Kenneth Kitichen! Another Note on Dever is in order here, he is rather critical of the Bible actually and if you would have read the article a little more carefully it actually says that him and Davies are not that much different on there stance of Scriptures Historicity. I know Dever rejects most of the narratives of the Patriarchs and the Exodus, Judges, all way up to the time of the monarchy (I THINK, I could be wrong and confusing him with someone else)
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Comments_Davies_Dever.htm
In Christ,
Blake

In Christ,
Blake

[Sauron]

Why do you say that Finkelstein is eccentric? His credentials are at least as good as Dever's; if not better.

What particularly attracts you to Kitchen and his views?

[Blake Reas]

02-28-2003 @ 07:29 AM
Sauron:

Why do you say that Finkelstein is eccentric? His credentials are at least as good as Dever's; if not better.

What particularly attracts you to Kitchen and his views?

I am not denying that Finkelstein has credentials, I have not read his book but I do remember someone telling me that he believes that Bible was written in the time of the Ptomelies (correct me if i am wrong)! I like Kitchen because he is an Egyptologist, biblical scholar, and has a great grasp on archaelogist and to be blount about it I have not seen anyone convincingly refute him.

I take my point back about Finkelstien's views being eccentric taht is the minimalist who believe the Bible was written in the time of the Ptomelies. Finkelstein is a centrist (640-560B.C.) for the writing of the Bible. My mistake

In Christ,
Blake:no:

[Pilgrim]

02-27-2003 @ 08:30 PM
Sauron:



Actually, the Tel Dan stele doesn't give conclusive evidence for a particular person existing. Many peoples trace their ancestry back to a single individual who is themselves mythological. Rome traces its ancestry back to twins Romulus and Remus, who were supposedly raised by a she-wolf in the wild. And the royal house of the Svear (pre-christian Sweden) traced their ancestry back to Yng, an incarnation of the god Freyr. They royal line was called the &quot;Ynglingar&quot;, or Ynglings in English.

So the stele *might* indicate a real person named David. But then again, it might not. It's just not conclusive.

But it is significant inthat it is an extra biblical primary source.

[Sauron]

03-01-2003 @ 08:05 AM
Pilgrim:



But it is significant inthat it is an extra biblical primary source.

But you have to ask yourself, an extra-biblical primary source that testifies to --- what, exactly?

It doesn't give definitive testimony to an actual person named David.

I suppose it could be said that it does give testimony to the existence of the phrase "House of David", and its usage as a collective term for Israelite royalty. Or you could also say that the stele gives testimony to specific kings mentioned in the text (Hadad, Jehoram son of Ahab, etc.).

Is that what you're driving at here? Or did I misunderstand you? :doh:

[Vorkosigan]

Another Note on Dever is in order here, he is rather critical of the Bible actually and if you would have read the article a little more carefully it actually says that him and Davies are not that much different on there stance of Scriptures Historicity.

Yes, Davies has used that point effectively in fending off Dever's criticisms.

Vorkosigan

[Celsus]

Incidentally, Dever may have had a fundamentalist upbringing, but he is now an agnostic (after a stint of Judaism). He may be opposed to the minimalist position (which is not particularly surprising), but he also admits that many of the conservative findings are plain wrong: (to paraphrase: If you want a miracle, here it is: Joshua destroyed a city [Jericho] that wasn't even there.) He was responsible for showing that most of the cities that Joshua "conquered" were uninhabited at the supposed date in the 13th century. IIRC, he relates a Late Bronze Age decline with the rise of Israel, something along the lines of Judges rather than the Exodus.

Celsus

[Celsus]

02-28-2003 @ 06:11 AM
Sera Sixwings:
With regards to the Exodus, is there a Scripture-based consensus on its date?
1 Kings 6:1
In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord.
Solomon's reign (if he existed as stated in the Bible and is not a mythological exaggeration) began between 970-960 BCE, which puts an Exodus date roughly around 1450-1440 BCE. Unfortunately, this contradicts the length of time of Judges (which by itself would add up to well over 400 years (and add to that the 40 year reigns of Saul and David, plus the time that Samuel was a judge, plus the 40 years in the wilderness--and you get a date at least a century earlier). So literalists have to accept some overlapping spaces in Judges, or else throw out one or the other time periods.

Joel

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-03-2003 @ 05:34 AM] - Celsus:

Solomon's reign (if he existed as stated in the Bible and is not a mythological exaggeration) began between 970-960 BCE, which puts an Exodus date roughly around 1450-1440 BCE.
Hi, Celsus, and thanks.

But I still have seen no answer to my first question: Where is the archaeological evidence for the Exodus? What does Tel Dan have to do with archaeological evidence for the Exodus? What does the Documentary Hypothesis have to do with archaeological evidence for the Exodus? What does some argument between 'minimalists' and 'maximalists' have to do with archaeological evidence for th Exodus?

Please forgive me if this sounds rude, but it seems like people keep avoiding the question. Honest, if the question is inapropriate, just tell me and I'll stop asking.

[Pilgrim]

03-02-2003 @ 07:36 PM
Sauron:



But you have to ask yourself, an extra-biblical primary source that testifies to --- what, exactly?

It doesn't give definitive testimony to an actual person named David.

I suppose it could be said that it does give testimony to the existence of the phrase &quot;House of David&quot;, and its usage as a collective term for Israelite royalty. Or you could also say that the stele gives testimony to specific kings mentioned in the text (Hadad, Jehoram son of Ahab, etc.).

Is that what you're driving at here? Or did I misunderstand you? :doh:

That is what I am driving at for the most part. Like many finds there is no way to verify the reference 100% to any individual but I think that the othere elements of the stele pointin a certain direction.

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-03-2003 @ 03:13 PM] - Pilgrim:

Like many finds there is no way to verify the reference 100% to any individual but I think that the othere elements of the stele point in a certain direction. But, again, not to the Exodus.

[Blake Reas]

03-03-2003 @ 02:31 AM
Celsus:

Incidentally, Dever may have had a fundamentalist upbringing, but he is now an agnostic (after a stint of Judaism). He may be opposed to the minimalist position (which is not particularly surprising), but he also admits that many of the conservative findings are plain wrong: (to paraphrase: If you want a miracle, here it is: Joshua destroyed a city [Jericho] that wasn't even there.) He was responsible for showing that most of the cities that Joshua &quot;conquered&quot; were uninhabited at the supposed date in the 13th century. IIRC, he relates a Late Bronze Age decline with the rise of Israel, something along the lines of Judges rather than the Exodus.

Celsus

The funny thing is there is only a lack of evidence if you place the exodus at a late date as does Dever.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-03-2003 @ 07:20 PM] - Blake Reas:

The funny thing is there is only a lack of evidence if you place the exodus at a late date as does Dever.
Why is that, Blake Reas? Perhaps more to the point, why be coy? Why not simply offer your proposed date, your reasons for it, and the evidence uncovered as a result of selecting that date?

[Blake Reas]

03-03-2003 @ 12:05 PM
Sera Sixwings:


Hi, Celsus, and thanks.

But I still have seen no answer to my first question: Where is the archaeological evidence for the Exodus? What does Tel Dan have to do with archaeological evidence for the Exodus? What does the Documentary Hypothesis have to do with archaeological evidence for the Exodus? What does some argument between 'minimalists' and 'maximalists' have to do with archaeological evidence for th Exodus?

Please forgive me if this sounds rude, but it seems like people keep avoiding the question. Honest, if the question is inapropriate, just tell me and I'll stop asking.

1. The Documentary Hypothesis is the lense through which all archaeology evidence is viewed. If you believe the Bible was written late you will come with the assumption that the Bible is not Historical.
2. To be honest there is not a whole lot of evidence for the exodus. But we must remember two things:
A) Pharoh would not write about his defeat at the hands of the Hebrews. Pharohs tended to only write about what exalted them as with all kings of the ANE.
B) The Exodus Narratives follow the Egyptian Fortifications of the time, which is only anecdotal evidence. I will have to go back to the book I read to get more on this!
3. Tel Dan basically just has implications for skeptical theories of the Bible, for instance if it is indeed Daniel as Kitchen showed in his Article in the Sheffield Journal of OT studies "Dead as Dod" it would totally dismantle a lot of skeptical theories. (Note: Kitchen did say that it is not 100% positive it is David just that it is a better explanation then the "Copenhagen School")


By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

[Blake Reas]

03-03-2003 @ 07:28 PM
Sera Sixwings:


Why is that, Blake Reas? Perhaps more to the point, why be coy? Why not simply offer your proposed date, your reasons for it, and the evidence uncovered as a result of selecting that date?
From the internal Biblical accounts I would say around 1450 some where in that area. The late date cannot be held up under scrutinty under the Biblical text. I was not being coy so why don't stop the Childish assumptions.:fight:

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

[Blake Reas]

There can also be a fair case made for the Conquest matching the Biblical record if it is dated Early anyway at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

[Sauron]

03-03-2003 @ 11:33 AM
Blake Reas:

1. The Documentary Hypothesis is the lense through which all archaeology evidence is viewed.

No, it isn't. The archaeological evidence stands/falls by itself. The DH is useful, but it doesn't "bend" the evidence in a certain direction.


If you believe the Bible was written late you will come with the assumption that the Bible is not Historical.


Actually, people come to this conclusion (that the bible is not historical) more as a result of examining the contemporary records, archaeological findings, forensic data, etc. and/or the lack of such findings where there really ought to be some.



2. To be honest there is not a whole lot of evidence for the exodus. But we must remember two things:
A) Pharoh would not write about his defeat at the hands of the Hebrews. Pharohs tended to only write about what exalted them as with all kings of the ANE.


Several problems with this approach.

1. It isn't true. Egyptian records show several defeats of the Egyptian army; by your logic, those shouldn't appear at all. Yet they do.

2. There is also no record of this in any contemporary civilization. Even if you were correct about the Egyptians always expunging their own records (which isn't true), one could expect that a neighboring empire might record such a disaster - if for no other reason, than to denigrate the Egyptians.

3. Your position assumes that the only evidence we ought to have to support Exodus, would be written evidence. But there are many other kinds of evidence.

4. It's not just the evidence we do have that disagrees with an exodus, it's the fact that we're missing certain key pieces of evidence that *ought* to be there. For example, we have zero evidence to support the drowning of an entire army, along with chariots, spears, shields. And we also have zero evidence to support any kind of wandering in the Sinai for 40 years.

[Sera Sixwings]

1. The Documentary Hypothesis is the lense through which all archaeology evidence is viewed.By whom, specifically? Where and how have you seen this lens distort the interpretation of archaeological evidence?
2. To be honest there is not a whole lot of evidence for the exodus. But we must remember two things: Pharoh would not write about his defeat at the hands of the Hebrews. Pharohs tended to only write about what exalted them as with all kings of the ANE.
The Exodus Narratives follow the Egyptian Fortifications of the time, which is only anecdotal evidence. I will have to go back to the book I read to get more on this!Correct. There is no evidence.
3. Tel Dan basically just has implications for skeptical theories of the Bible, No. Tel Dan has implications for skeptical theories concerning Israelite and Judean history. And, as you've noted, the disagreement between minimalists and maximalists should not be overstated. So, to quote Dever:Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.
[What did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It]Tel Dan is wholly peripheral to much of the OT.
for instance if it is indeed Daniel as Kitchen showed in his Article in the Sheffield Journal of OT studies "Dead as Dod" it would totally dismantle a lot of skeptical theories. (Note: Kitchen did say that it is not 100% positive it is David just that it is a better explanation then the "Copenhagen School")If it will help, I'm more than willing to stipulate a House of David.

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-03-2003 @ 07:36 PM] - Blake Reas:

From the internal Biblical accounts I would say around 1450 some where in that area. The late date cannot be held up under scrutinty under the Biblical text. I was not being coy so why don't stop the Childish assumptions.You wrote previously: "The funny thing is there is only a lack of evidence if you place the exodus at a late date as does Dever."Of course, this came right after informing all of us that "To be honest there is not a whole lot of evidence for the exodus."An interesting pair of sentences, are they not? :no:

Moving on, one could reasonably assume that entertaining your 1450 date would open the door to such (newfound?) evidence. The "funny thing is" that you chose to offer insult instead. The "funny thing is" that you continue to shy away from presenting evidence. With all due respect, you're not doing very well.

[Pilgrim]

03-03-2003 @ 02:14 PM
Sera Sixwings:

But, again, not to the Exodus.

I'm not sure where the idea about a reference to Exodus came into this? The stele really has nothing to do with the Exodus as it comes from much much later.

[Celsus]

Edit: Whoops... didn't read this thread carefully.

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-04-2003 @ 12:38 AM] - Pilgrim:

I'm not sure where the idea about a reference to Exodus came into this? The stele really has nothing to do with the Exodus as it comes from much much later. I'm sorry, Pilgrim, I guess it I'm simply expressing some frustration.

Of course the "stele really has nothing to do with the Exodus as it comes from much much later". It is also far more comfortable to talk about: rather than acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes, many would much rather discuss whether or not there's evidence of a tailor in the village some 5 centuries later.

In the first two posts in this thread we read in part: "I am starting this thread to discuss archaeology. ... I find it interesting that Amenhotep, came up with Monotheism after the traditional date for the Exodus! If you want to discuss it we can. Another intersting discussion would be the date of the Exodus!" - Blake Reas, and "The exodus-related material sounds like an excellent starting point. I would expect that new issues will spawn themselves as discussion gets underway! Thanks, Blake!" - Captain OchreWhat follows gives every indication of a systematic effort to avoid discussing the archaeology of the Exodus. The closest we have is Blake Reas' two contradictory statements about the evidence that is, as yet, not forthcoming.