Israeli Kings No Myth, New Data Suggest

[Socrates]

From History News Network hnn.us/comments/11079.html


News Archives 3-03 to 4-03
Subject: Israeli Kings No Myth
Posted By: Editor
Date Posted: April 17, 2003, 8:17 PM
Los Angeles Times

12 April 2003 Saturday Home Edition

SECTION: Main News; Part 1; Page 25; National Desk

HEADLINE: Science File; Israeli Kings No Myth, New Data Suggest

BYLINE: Thomas H. Maugh II, Times Staff Writer

New radioactive dating from a major Iron Age site called Tel Rehov in northern Israel supports the biblical tradition that David and his son Solomon, founders of the ancient kingdom of Israel, were real nation-builders and not largely mythical figures, as some revisionist historians have argued.

Recent excavations at Megiddo, 25 miles west of Rehov, had suggested that palaces and other artifacts there once associated with Solomon were built by a later family of rulers called the Omrides. Based on those finds, archeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University established a so-called Low Chronology in which Solomon and David are minor chieftains at best.

But a team led by archeologist Amihai Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in Friday's issue of Science that carbon from olive pits and charred grain from one of three "destruction layers" at Tel Rehov date the layer to 940 to 900 BC. The destruction layers mark times when the site was demolished before being rebuilt.

The new dates correspond to a Sherman-like march across Palestine by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq, a well-documented event that occurred around 925 BC. According to the biblical books I Kings and II Chronicles, Shoshenq began his invasion five years after Solomon's death. Because Tel Rehov was a 10-hectare urban center, the dating supports the biblical account of Solomon.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:06 PM post located here
Socrates:
Los Angeles Times

12 April 2003 Saturday Home Edition
New radioactive dating from...

[Celsus]

The article that this is referring to is this one:

Hendrik J. Bruins, Johannes van der Plicht, Amihai Mazar, "14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings," in Science Volume 300, Number 5617, Issue of 11 Apr 2003, pp. 315-318.

The results do not represent any finds, merely a refined carbon dating calibration--in fact the probability is still higher that the assemblages should be dated to Omride times (bold emphasis mine):

• The weighted average date [2755_±_25_years before the 14C present (yr B.P.)] gives a 1[sigma] calibrated age range of 918_to 892_yr B.C.E. with 25.4% relative probability and another age range of 880_to 836_yr B.C.E. with 42.8% relative probability (Fig. 2). The calibration curve descends steeply and regularly during the second half of the 10th century B.C.E. and the first two decades of the 9th century (Fig. 3). Then the calibration curve goes up around 875_B.C.E. to form a small plateau that lasts until 845_B.C.E. Hence, there are two principal options for the calibrated date of Stratum IV. The period 880 to 836_B.C.E. is most likely in probability terms, but 918_to 892_B.C.E. is also possible. The invasion of the Aramean ruler Ben Hadad I during the time of King Baasha of Israel (902_to 886 B.C.E.; I Kings 15:20) is a possible candidate. But other events following the end of the Omride Dynasty seem more plausible for the destruction of Stratum IV and the abandonment of the lower city. The Jehu revolt (843_B.C.E.), the Assyrian invasion of Shalmaneser III (841_B.C.E.), or the Aramean invasions of Israel during the time of Hazael (between 840_and 830_B.C.E.) all fit the radiocarbon dating results.

And in fact, it says nothing about the historicity of Solomon, but rather that Omride pottery (i.e. dating to the time of the Omride dynasty) and Solomonic pottery (again, this is a time frame) are difficult to distinguish. There is no new finds or data to support the historicity of Solomon--rather the article argues that chronological assignment to pottery shards needs to be revised:

• Our research negates an important argument of the low chronology theory, namely, that Iron Age IIA ceramic assemblages should be confined exclusively to the 9th century B.C.E. The 14C dating results imply that it is difficult to distinguish between "Solomonic" and "Omride" pottery. The site of Ta'anach (27), about 8_km southeast of Megiddo (Fig. 1), is also mentioned on the Karnak list of places destroyed by Shoshenq. Period II-B pottery at Ta'anach, assigned to 960_to 918_B.C.E. (27) and to the 9th century in the low chronology (28), is identical to that found in Tel Rehov Stratum V._Period II-B ended in a fierce destruction, which can be related to Shoshenq's campaign in view of our results.
  
  Because Shishak (Shoshenq I) is mentioned as a contemporary of Solomon in biblical texts, we find it plausible to retain the linkage of specified archaeological assemblages (Rehov Stratum V, Ta'anach II-B, Hazor X, Megiddo VB, and perhaps also VA-IVB, etc.) to the United Hebrew Monarchy. Our results also have implications for the chronology of Cyprus and Greece because imported pottery from both countries was found in Tel Rehov Strata V and IV. It appears that the traditional chronology of Greece can be maintained, but for Cyprus, older dates seem appropriate for some pottery groups (29, 30).

Overreaching with archaeology once again... All it does is make a case for the recalibration of carbon-14 dates because of what we know about Shoshenq from Egyptian inscriptions. Yes the Bible contains a fact or two. No, this article doesn't support Solomon's historicity. But then, YECs don't accept radiometric dating. Or only when it supports their prejudices?

Joel

[Socrates]

Celsus:

• But then, YECs don't accept radiometric dating. Or only when it supports their prejudices?

No, YECs point out the assumptions behind radiometric dating, but also that they may be valid for 14C dating of artefacts well after the Flood. And the point remains is that the data are CONSISTENT with the accuracy of Solomon and inconsistent with the misotheistic revisionism of the likes of the Finkelstein fruitloop.

And Celsus is deluding himself if he thinks that only YECs have prejudices. He probably thinks that rabid God-haters such as Dawkins and himself are the epitome of objectivity.

[Woman]

Soc,

Everybody beat me to teasing you about leading with "new radio-carbon dating."

I found a site about the patriarchs which maintains that the Bible is the most accurate historical document intact. Now, it doesn't support Christianity nor is it anti-religion. It's chiefly a history site not a Biblical one. But I was surprised at how many things they attribute to the Bible as fact and how modern archeology is indeed affirming many of the places and people named in the OT.

It makes the case for a devastating flood though not worldwide which would have impacted the people in a big way, killing a large number. Of course they have different dates for this. But, for both sides of the young/old earth issue - there may be facts on this site which will interest you.

http://www.eg-ban.com/toc_patriarchs.html

I don't want anyone to think I'm misleading them. This article believes that parts of the OT are derived from myth. There's just so much good information about the accuracy of much of it.

[Celsus]

And Celsus is deluding himself if he thinks that only YECs have prejudices. He probably thinks that rabid God-haters such as Dawkins and himself are the epitome of objectivity.

My, aren't we grouchy today? I'd appreciate it if you put the goalposts back where you found them... Especially coming from a "scientist" who doesn't think to check original sources before claiming that an article supports his prejudices.

Joel

[Vorkosigan]

My, aren't we grouchy today? I'd appreciate it if you put the goalposts back where you found them... Especially coming from a "scientist" who doesn't think to check original sources before claiming that an article supports his prejudices.
Joel

Nail. Hit. Head. Good work, Celsus.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:50 AM post located here
Socrates:
No, YECs point out the assumptions behind radiometric dating, but also that they may be valid for 14C dating of artefacts well after the Flood.

Oh, that's it. Can you please explain to me, Socretes, the mathematical model that shows the C-12/C-14 ratio with respect to time, starting at Day One in Genesis 1 to its present ratio? I've got some numbers I'd like to share on the subject regarding the time being "well after the Flood".

[bhukkadakota]

so what if solomon was real or not?
what does that prove?
heaps of nations keeps records or their founders and past kings.
it just means whoever wrote the bible, knew who the kings in the past was. it proves nothing about the authenticity of the bible.
its just like the naming of actual towns in the NT, it just means whoever wrote the scriptures have either been to that town before or heard about it.

[Dr.GH]

Gee, this looks like another article that socrat either didn't read, or couldn't understand.

(I don't want to violate any "character counts" rules. Appologies to Michael Josephson).

[Dilton]

Hey you all, leave Socrates be, He has just proved that Almight Lord Created the world and all stuff you bunch of morons.

[stevencarrwork]

05-07-2003 @ 03:06 AM
Socrates:



But a team led by archeologist Amihai Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in Friday's issue of Science that carbon from olive pits and charred grain from one of three "destruction layers" at Tel Rehov date the layer to 940 to 900 BC. The destruction layers mark times when the site was demolished before being rebuilt.

The new dates correspond to a Sherman-like march across Palestine by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq, a well-documented event that occurred around 925 BC. According to the biblical books I Kings and II Chronicles, Shoshenq began his invasion five years after Solomon's death. Because Tel Rehov was a 10-hectare urban center, the dating supports the biblical account of Solomon.

'....period 880 to 836_B.C.E. is most likely in probability terms, but 918_to 892_B.C.E. is also possible.'

So a report which never found any evidence of somebody called Solomon, uses techniques condemned by YEC's, and actually says the 9th century is more likely, and rules out 925 BC, and which Socrates never saw, (he never even saw the LA Times report), is cited gleefully by Socrates as evidence.

The guy is just so objective. I think troll points are in order for the LA Times for printing something false, and getting creationists to swallow it.

[Celsus]

Not to mention that Amihai Mazar (let alone Finkelstein or Dever, despite all their public and often acrimonious disagreements) would laugh at Socrates' interpretation of the Bible. Mazar is a proper scholar and his book, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E., is the text to get for ancient pre-exilic Israel (and don't get your hopes up for finding anything about Abraham or Noah or Adam in there).

Joel

[Dr.GH]

Cut it out you guys. I just spent another $100 at amazon.com

[HerodionRomulus]

To keep up with the debate between the 'minimalists' and 'maximalists' I would suggest a subscription to Biblical Archeology Review.

But that might allow facts to interfere and we can't have that now can we?