"Dietrich ... or Why You Should Be Wary of Those Claiming Archaeology Confirms the Bible"


Here is why you have to be wary about simply taking one small bit of archaeological find and using it to confirm an entire ancient account.
"Dietrich von Bern (Verona) was based on the historical figure, Theodoric the Great, an Ostrogoth king who ruled Italy after Odoacer, another Ostrogoth king, who died in AD 493. Theodoric established a strong kingdom and reigned until his death in AD 526.

In Germanic legend, Theodoric was known as Dietrich, and he was made contemporary of other well-known historical figures, Attila the Hun (Etzel), Guntharius (Gunther) and Ermanaric (Jormunrek). Historically, Theodoric was born around 20 years after Attila's death (AD 453) and around hundred years after Ermanaric, who died in AD 375. Guntharius was killed in AD 437."
http://www.timelessmyths.com/norse/dietrich.html

We have archaeological evidence that Verona and Ravenna (another city mentioned in the Dietrich saga) was occupied during the mid-first millenium A.D. Does this confirm that the saga of Dietrich of Bern is historically accurate? Obviously not. The story contains anachronisms, such as Attila, Gunther and Ermanaric all living contemporaneously with Dietrich, a historical impossibility. There actually was a battle of Ravenna (in 432) and this is mentioned in one of the saga's about Dietrich. So archaeological evidence of this battle, even from the right time period (as correct as archaeology can be), does not make these sagas any more believable. They were based upon kernels of historical truth but so much legendary varnish was added to these stories that the whole cannot be accepted as historical truth.

So, is there evidence the history of the Bible suffered from such legendary accretions and distortions of stories? There is. This is probably best seen in the anachronisms in the Bible, especially the Old Testament's earliest books. Genesis refers to Philistines centuries before the Philistines arrived in the levant. The same goes for references to Hittites. Many Christians attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions by claiming that although the names are the same, they are actually referring to peoples other than the historically known ones. The fact that the Philistines in Genesis are living in the exact same area as the later historically known Philistines is often ignored. Now, look at what happens if we apply the same logic to the Dietrich saga. We have a bunch of people who couldn't have actually been contemporaries. Yet, if we simply assume that they are referring to other people the contradiction goes away. But of course this leaves us with a completely unbelievable story where there were other Ermanarics and Attilas, also leaders of the same groups that the historically known ones led, living just a generation earlier or later. And all of this without a scrap of evidence to support it. No, Occam's Razor won't allow us to do this. If we could we could make any contradictory account seem reasonable and we'd be living in an insane world where we can't be certain of anything.

But if we reject attempts to reconcile the anachronisms in Dietrich's saga and are forced to reject it, even though it contains some historical truths, as overall being unreliable we are forced to do the same with the earliest stories in the Old Testament.

Originally posted by Bubbahotep

So, is there evidence the history of the Bible suffered from such legendary accretions and distortions of stories? There is. This is probably best seen in the anachronisms in the Bible, especially the Old Testament's earliest books. Genesis refers to Philistines centuries before the Philistines arrived in the levant. The same goes for references to Hittites. Many Christians attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions by claiming that although the names are the same, they are actually referring to peoples other than the historically known ones. The fact that the Philistines in Genesis are living in the exact same area as the later historically known Philistines is often ignored.

Hi there!




The biblical account identifies that Abraham had contact with the Philistines at a time when there is no archaeological evidences of the presence of the Philistines in southern Israel. However, the term Philistines is used interchangeably with the group known as the "Sea people" or people from the area of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea in later texts. It is well-known that the Sea people had extensive trade with all areas of the Levant and that is evidenced by the Cypriotic pottery found in excavations in the Levant as well as Mycenaean pottery pieces.

The question is not in the interaction with Sea people, but in the dating of when and where they arrived in Palestine. The question is not settled on the origins of the Sea people with whom Abraham had contact, but certainly the Thera volcano in c. 1600 BCE influenced the increased immigration of Sea peoples into Egypt and Palestine. Abraham may have been in contact with a trading group of Sea people who may have established a trade center as early as 2000 BCE centuries before the influx of immigrating Sea people in later biblical accounts.

~serapha~

Originally posted by Bubbahotep

"Dietrich ... or Why You Should Be Wary of Those Claiming Archaeology Confirms the Bible"


Here is why you have to be wary about simply taking one small bit of archaeological find and using it to confirm an entire ancient account.
"Dietrich von Bern (Verona) was based on the historical figure, Theodoric the Great, an Ostrogoth king who ruled Italy after Odoacer, another Ostrogoth king, who died in AD 493.

Nitpick: Odoacer wasn't an Ostrogoth king. He was a Skiran mercenary in the Roman army (which by then consisted mostly of mercenaries) who had deposed the last West Roman emperor in AD 476.

Theoderic, after unsuccessfully laying siege to Ravenna, invited Odoacer to a parley and slew him there. Not very gentlemanlike!

Theodoric established a strong kingdom and reigned until his death in AD 526.

In Germanic legend, Theodoric was known as Dietrich, and he was made contemporary of other well-known historical figures, Attila the Hun (Etzel), Guntharius (Gunther) and Ermanaric (Jormunrek). Historically, Theodoric was born around 20 years after Attila's death (AD 453) and around hundred years after Ermanaric, who died in AD 375. Guntharius was killed in AD 437."
http://www.timelessmyths.com/norse/dietrich.html

We have archaeological evidence that Verona and Ravenna (another city mentioned in the Dietrich saga) was occupied during the mid-first millenium A.D. Does this confirm that the saga of Dietrich of Bern is historically accurate? Obviously not. The story contains anachronisms, such as Attila, Gunther and Ermanaric all living contemporaneously with Dietrich, a historical impossibility. There actually was a battle of Ravenna (in 432) and this is mentioned in one of the saga's about Dietrich. So archaeological evidence of this battle, even from the right time period (as correct as archaeology can be), does not make these sagas any more believable. They were based upon kernels of historical truth but so much legendary varnish was added to these stories that the whole cannot be accepted as historical truth.

So, is there evidence the history of the Bible suffered from such legendary accretions and distortions of stories? There is. This is probably best seen in the anachronisms in the Bible, especially the Old Testament's earliest books. Genesis refers to Philistines centuries before the Philistines arrived in the levant. The same goes for references to Hittites. Many Christians attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions by claiming that although the names are the same, they are actually referring to peoples other than the historically known ones. The fact that the Philistines in Genesis are living in the exact same area as the later historically known Philistines is often ignored. Now, look at what happens if we apply the same logic to the Dietrich saga. We have a bunch of people who couldn't have actually been contemporaries. Yet, if we simply assume that they are referring to other people the contradiction goes away. But of course this leaves us with a completely unbelievable story where there were other Ermanarics and Attilas, also leaders of the same groups that the historically known ones led, living just a generation earlier or later. And all of this without a scrap of evidence to support it. No, Occam's Razor won't allow us to do this. If we could we could make any contradictory account seem reasonable and we'd be living in an insane world where we can't be certain of anything.

But if we reject attempts to reconcile the anachronisms in Dietrich's saga and are forced to reject it, even though it contains some historical truths, as overall being unreliable we are forced to do the same with the earliest stories in the Old Testament.

Excellent analysis, if I may say so.

I have argued on similar lines based on the Nibelungenlied (which, as you know, has some overlaps with the Dietrich saga). The historical existence of persons like Attila and the Burgundian kings, nations like Huns and places like Worms or Bechelaren does not mean that Siegfried's dragon slaying is equally historical.

The biblical account identifies that Abraham had contact with the Philistines at a time when there is no archaeological evidences of the presence of the Philistines in southern Israel. However, the term Philistines is used interchangeably with the group known as the "Sea people" or people from the area of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea in later texts. It is well-known that the Sea people had extensive trade with all areas of the Levant and that is evidenced by the Cypriotic pottery found in excavations in the Levant as well as Mycenaean pottery pieces.

Archaeology and ancient inscriptions (especially those of Egypt) indicate that the Sea Peoples (of whom the Phillistines were one part) arrived in the Levant in the late 13th/early 12 centuries BC. That is long after Abraham should have lived, given that no one even dates Moses later than the 13th century BC and there was over 400 years between those two individuals according to Biblical chronology.

The question is not in the interaction with Sea people, but in the dating of when and where they arrived in Palestine. The question is not settled on the origins of the Sea people with whom Abraham had contact, but certainly the Thera volcano in c. 1600 BCE influenced the increased immigration of Sea peoples into Egypt and Palestine. Abraham may have been in contact with a trading group of Sea people who may have established a trade center as early as 2000 BCE centuries before the influx of immigrating Sea people in later biblical accounts.

There is no evidence for Phillistines in the levant prior to their dramatic arrival at the end of the 13th century BC. Therefore Abraham's interaction with them is an anachronism. On what basis do you say there were Phillistines in the area so early? There is no evidence to support your unwarranted guess. Remember that if we accept your attempt to reconcile the Bible and archaeology on this matter then you would have to accept a similar reconciliation of the Dietrich saga and we know that to do so would result in making a clearly untrue legend (in its whole) appear to be legitimate history. Historians, naturally, refuse to do this so why should they make an exception in the case of the one ancient document that you like so much?

Thanks HRG new,

excellent point about the dragon in the Niebelungenlied. Unfortunately, the Christians (or at least serapha) don't seem to get the point.

Originally posted by Bubbahotep

Thanks HRG new,

excellent point about the dragon in the Niebelungenlied. Unfortunately, the Christians (or at least serapha) don't seem to get the point.

Some of us do, well...I do. Just for the record. I think it is a valid point too, it needs a lot more than a few matching names to turn up...

Originally posted by James Peter

Some of us do, well...I do. Just for the record. I think it is a valid point too, it needs a lot more than a few matching names to turn up...

Thanks, James Peter, I retract my statement. "Some" Christians don't get the point.

I won't deny that I'm firmly in the minority on this issue and it would probably even be accurate to say that "most" don't get it but hey. I can understand the theological arguments that are put against the historical arguments and have a lot of sympathy for them. Its just that they should be acknowledged as that - theologically based. I'm sure it isn't intentional but misleading people to get them to agree with your faith is very much not christian in my opinion.

TO: Bubbahotep

Here is a relief that the Israel Museum in Jerusalem says is Hittite art and it is dated at 1700 B.C. according to Professor Humble:

http://www.knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htm

We must also consider the data that Forrer provided that would indicate that the Hittites that were found at Boghazkoy in Turkey may also have been the Biblical Hittites given at a website below:

"Migration of Hittites: In 1936 Forrer interpreted a Hittite inscription from the 14th century B.C. by King Mursilis II that spoke of a migration into Egyptian territory as the origin of Palestinian Hittites. Although this referred to a much earlier time when Palestine was Egyptian territory, it was not likely as early as the Abraham. However, there is nothing that would have prevented another undocumented immigration to Palestine at an earlier date."

taken from:
http://www.homestead.com/danwagner/files/Hittites.htm

Given the lion and dog relief in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem which Professor Humble mentions perhaps the above paragraph should at least be considered.

The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia states that the scholars Lehman and and Tucker "detected traces of Hittite real estate procedure in the transaction between Ephron and Abraham" (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, 1983, page 800).


In addition, a website offers some commentary readers may wish to consider regarding this matter:

http://www.probe.org/docs/arch-ot.html

The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia also states the the Indo European Hittites who entered Anotolia received their name by accident by virtue of settling in territory previously held by a non-Indo-European group called the Hatti-people. I mention this not to support a Indo European Hittite migration to Palestine but to explain how they got their name.

Now it is true that the Wycliffe Bible Encylopedia states that usually the references to Hittites in the Bible refer to the sons of Heth which a "relatively unimportant group living in Palestine since the days of the Partriarchs." (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, 1983, page 799) it is clealy not as dogmatic as the author of this string was and offers evidence that may indicate that Indo-European Hittites who entered Anotolia may have immigrated to central Palestine. It does seem the Hittites play a more minor role in the Bible than some groups (Wycliffe calls them "relatively unimportant") because my Strong commentary had 20 plus references to the word Hittites whereas the word Amorites had 70 plus references. Now given the current fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence mentioned above plus the other information I mentioned, I do believe Wycliffe is being judicious in regards to their stated views on the subject.

So while it may be true that the "sons of Heth" may usually be the Biblical Hittites there is not enough certainty in my opinion and the opinion of the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia to make categorical statements.

Lastly, I suggest reading what JP Holding says about the Philistines.

Here is JP's essay:

Philistine Phailure? Or, An Aegean Anachronism? by James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oldphilistines.html

timestar,

funny, even though the name is new your style seem awfully familiar. Almost all of your posts so far have been related to addressing posts specifically targetting Ken DeMyer. The only one that is not is this one, in which you tackle me, someone who has had a number of dustups with the infamous apologetics spammer. And this post is in true Ken DeMyer fashion with a long list of quotes pulled from "websites". That's a word that is oh so typically Ken. Now, I'm not saying you are Ken but I haven't met many people like him ... Anyway, hopefully if you stick around you'll be more open to actually engaging in debate and not just posting long lists of "websites" you think support your claims.

TO: Bubbahotep

A few comments:

1. My sources were not exclusively websites. See Moody Bible Encyclopedia reference.

2. I am guessing since you could not address the conservative scholarship which you conveniently left out, you decided to merely comment on style instead.

Originally posted by timestar

TO: Bubbahotep

A few comments:

1. My sources were not exclusively websites. See Moody Bible Encyclopedia reference.

2. I am guessing since you could not address the conservative scholarship which you conveniently left out, you decided to merely comment on style instead.

Your references are reruns of retreads with references to outdated sources of weak apologetic scholarship that in reality do not address the known problems and weaknesses brought out by Bubbahtep.

Shunyadragon,

It is one thing to merely call something weak apologetic scholarship and it is another to demonstrate it to be weak. I see you merely did the former. You are not going to create the world's first skeptical/atheist revival using such tactics.

Originally posted by timestar

Shunyadragon,

It is one thing to merely call something weak apologetic scholarship and it is another to demonstrate it to be weak. I see you merely did the former. You are not going to create the world's first skeptical/atheist revival using such tactics.

My point is clear. Present coherent clear arguments yourself that address Bubbahotep's arguments,a nd not old worn out surogate arguments.

I am waiting. If you present your own coherent arguments I will respond.

Originally posted by timestar

Here is a relief that the Israel Museum in Jerusalem says is Hittite art and it is dated at 1700 B.C. according to Professor Humble:

http://www.knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htm

There are a few problems with this. The date is very early in the time of the Hittite empire, so it's unlikely to indicate Hittite presence. If it's somehow related to Hittites, it could have been a present from a Hittite king to a trade-partner. But it might also be a local Semitic relief, to me it does not look specifically Hittite - but ok, I'm no expert.

Originally posted by timestar

We must also consider the data that Forrer provided that would indicate that the Hittites that were found at Boghazkoy in Turkey may also have been the Biblical Hittites given at a website below:

"Migration of Hittites: In 1936 Forrer interpreted a Hittite inscription from the 14th century B.C. by King Mursilis II that spoke of a migration into Egyptian territory as the origin of Palestinian Hittites. Although this referred to a much earlier time when Palestine was Egyptian territory, it was not likely as early as the Abraham. However, there is nothing that would have prevented another undocumented immigration to Palestine at an earlier date."

taken from:
http://www.homestead.com/danwagner/files/Hittites.htm

The 14th century bce, you say. Did you know that the border between the Egyptian empire and the Hittite empire at that time ran though middle Syria? So migretion into Egyptian territory need not refer to any Hittites much further south. And when exactly was Abraham supposed to have lived? Around 400 years before this migration!

Originally posted by timestar

Given the lion and dog relief in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem which Professor Humble mentions perhaps the above paragraph should at least be considered.

I've just considered it for you

Originally posted by timestar

The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia states that the scholars Lehman and and Tucker "detected traces of Hittite real estate procedure in the transaction between Ephron and Abraham" (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, 1983, page 800).

It's quite correct that the procedure is according to Hittite law. Ephron makes sure there are witnesses to the deal. According to Hittite law witnesses were as good as a written contract. But was this law uniquely Hittite?

Originally posted by timestar

In addition, a website offers some commentary readers may wish to consider regarding this matter:

http://www.probe.org/docs/arch-ot.html

Ok, I'll have a peek at it, when I have time for it.

Originally posted by timestar

So while it may be true that the "sons of Heth" may usually be the Biblical Hittites there is not enough certainty in my opinion and the opinion of the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia to make categorical statements.

Unsure about, what you mean here. Do youi mean that the "sons of Heth" may not be Hittites, or do you mean that they may not be Biblical Hittites?

Originally posted by timestar

Here is JP's essay:

Philistine Phailure? Or, An Aegean Anachronism? by James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oldphilistines.html

Oh, with JP there's around 15% chance it's worth reading, so why not?


- FreezBee