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.

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?

02-26-2003 @ 04:46 PM
Pilgrim:
Where did the name "Stewart" come from? I had thought that prior to "Windsor" 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

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

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 ]

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.

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

Anyway, what archaeological evidence is there for the Exodus?

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

Thanks!

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

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!

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.

"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 !

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

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)!