Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Old Testament Archaeology
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
There's currently a bit of a spat going on over on the R&E boards, with some of us stating that there is little or no archaeological evidence that 'proves' the OT narrative.
I remember reading somewhere, quite recently, that Israeli archaeologists had concluded that, much as they like there to be, they have found nothing to confirm, or even hint at, the truth of the OT.
These academics, who really wanted to believe, have failed, and have been honest enough to admit it.
Does anyone have any information about this, or perhaps know where I should be looking ? -
Message 2
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
I would recommend Finkelstein and Silberman's 'The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel' as well as their follow-up 'David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of Western Civilization'; both works are sober, academic summaries of current archaeological study with respect to the correlation with the biblical narratives.
They would probably be classed as 'minimalists' by their critics, as they find little support from the archaeological record for biblical history, but personally I think that their work marks a new, perhaps popularist, phase in the debate over the historical veracity/reliability of the Bible. -
Message 3
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
Thanks Barry,
'The Bible Unearthed' was the one that I spotted on Amazon this morning. It could be that the authors are those Jewish archaeologists I referred to earlier.
The reviews were mixed, but your recommendation tips the balance. Sober and academic is exactly what the subject deserves.
I've already got 'The Oxford History of the Biblical World', but there are gaps in the research and investigation, and creationists don't understand gaps. -
Message 4
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
No problem - I would certainly recommend 'Bible Unearthed' as it represnts a lengthy tradition of rigorous and sober academic reflection on the relationships between the archaeological record and the Bible as history. I would aslo recommend reading it in conjunction with some of Thomas L. Thompson's and Philip Davies' works but be warned they are certainly both 'minimalists' in the debate! (No bad thing of course, but I find it helps to know where people stand in the 'divide').
Regards
Barry -
Message 5
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
Barry,
It's certainly one of the problems with 'academic' literature at the moment, with so many bookshops/stores, and even Amazon, listing or displaying all the pseudo-science, pseudo-history/archaeology, myth, and conspiracy theories, alongside the real thing.
The titles and sales bluster imply that these nonsense purveyors are the result of genuine and extensive academic research carried out by scholars and experts in the field.
We part with our cash and discover we have bought a book of nonsense written by someone with a law degree who has an agenda more akin to David Icke than Erhman, Gould, or Penrose (I enjoy science AND history) -
Message 6
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
Hi Delrick53
I couldn't agree more! My area of specific interest is ancient magic - I'm sure you can imagine what its like to do an amazon search for that kind of topic! Sifting through the results just to find the latest gem can be a bit of a nightmare!
Regards
Barry -
Message 7
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
Isn't one of the difficulties the fraught nature of the politics in the area? It would be great if agreement could be reached so that archaeologists could go in and dig where they felt they needed to, and a spirit of all round "Let's just find out the truth - wherever it leads!" abounded, but unfortunately that doesn't seem likely anytime soon (sorry to use that awful phrase).
I never feel that I can fully believe statements made by Israeli archaeologists because they may have 'axes to grind'. Can anyone reassure me on this point, please? -
Message 8
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
LairigGhru,
I think the fact that it was/is Jewish Israeli archaeologists working for Israeli universities and with government funding who have said that the OT narrative is wrong in just about everything should be enough.
Most of those who disagree are Christian fundamentalists, usually funded by evangelical groups or bible colleges in the USA (see 'Answers in Genesis' to witness the delusion).
They are the ones who shoehorn the evidence into the myth (or the other way round).
Others are groups of ultra-orthodox Jews with a 'biblical' agenda. -
Message 9
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
That's not me - I promise you!
Thanks for making the point. -
Message 10
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
LairigGhru,
Never thought it was !
They're all over at the R&E boards, telling us we're all doomed and will soon be burning in the 'Lake of Fire'. You can almost feel them smiling when they say it. -
Message 11
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
I think the question posted in message 1 was a little too broad. Nothing can 'prove' the Old Testament narrative but many Assyrian inscriptions mention Old Testament kings of Israel and Judah.
Mesha, king of Moab, in the Bible, left an inscription in cuneiform referring to the oppression of Moab by the House of Omri.
And of course Jericho, Shiloh, Mt Ebal, Hebron, Gaza, etc, all truely existed.
Shishak, if Shoshenk, is also placed in the correct time window by Biblical chronology.
There is an appreciable list of 'true' persons and places, but I don't think this is what you were referring to.
Perhaps you need to hone in on one or two specific issues.
Regards, Wickerman -
Message 12
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Wickerman,
I thought Jericho had been shown to have had no walls ?
The OP was a request for information/advice, but it's good to see a debate developing ! -
Message 13
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 17th July 2009
I thought Jericho had been shown to have had no walls ?
Μύ
Wickerman didn't say that there were walls (or even mention walls). All he mentioned was that it was one place in the Bible that truly existed:
And of course Jericho, Shiloh, Mt Ebal, Hebron, Gaza, etc, all truely existedΜύ -
Message 14
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Friday, 17th July 2009
And of course Jericho, Shiloh, Mt Ebal, Hebron, Gaza, etc, all truely existed. Μύ
Sherlock Holmes did much of his detective work in London I seem to recall. -
Message 15
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Friday, 17th July 2009
True Stoggler,
But he did mention the OP, where I referred to the Old Testament.
The claim made by many that the bible should be seen as an accurate historical document that's been confirmed by archaeological scholarship, is the subject of the thread over on the R&E boards, and that includes the history of Jericho, as it's written in the OT. -
Message 16
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 17th July 2009
The claim made by many that the bible should be seen as an accurate historical document that's been confirmed by archaeological scholarship, is the subject of the thread over on the R&E boards, and that includes the history of Jericho, as it's written in the OT.Μύ
Fair enough.
Coincidentally, Jericho and its absense of walls was mentioned on an old QI on Dave last night. -
Message 17
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Stoggler,
I'd love to say that I read about the lack of walls at Jericho after reading some venerable archaeological tome, but I can't.
I remembered it from QI first time round, and THEN read about it.
Great source, is our Stephen. -
Message 18
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Friday, 17th July 2009
This isn't specific enough.
Jericho, in the Late Bronze Age had no walls, at least not massive defensive walls.
Jericho in the Middle Bronze did have massive defensive walls.
which period are you concerned with, and why?
If orthodox scholarship insists on locating the 'biblical' fall of Jericho in the wrong time period then obviously they will insist there is no supporting evidence for a biblical fall of Jericho.
David Rohl places the biblical conquest in the Middle Bronze, and in this period the walls were massive, and they were destroyed towards the end of the MBII period (aka MBIII).
I don't support Rohl but he does have a point, because it is very difficult to be 'absolutely' sure about relative dating when Middle Bronze wares continued through the Late Bronze and even into the Iron Age.
This is an ongoing controvery.
Regards, Wickerman -
Message 19
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Saturday, 18th July 2009
Wickerman,
I've received the book suggested earlier, and obviously I'll have to read the thing before I can comment. But the thread on the R&E boards is suggesting that a recent book on biblical archaeology, written by Magnus Magnusson, is a reliable and scholarly work, and endorses the 'accuracy' of the biblical narrative.
Others disagree.
It's a general, not specific, debate, but obviously it will nave to become specific when evidence is discussed.
Perhaps that thread could benefit from your knowledge (and that of others here) ? -
Message 20
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Saturday, 18th July 2009
This will probably come as a surprise, but I basically agree with Wickerman on this one. Yes, we have some identity of names and places over a relatively short period of time, and a few other candidates that are still the subject of controversy, but we don't have any indication in the archaeology of the Jews as a different people or religion to the other inhabitants of the region.
Just one minor point
<>
Actually the date for Shoshenk was originally derived from equating him with Shishak, and using the biblical chronology, so there's a circularity there. The 'if' in that quotation is much more interesting.
Noggin -
Message 21
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 25th July 2009
I'm sure there's a lot of truth in the book of Samuel and the two books of Kings, because, after all, it is a narrative of the history of the nascent states of Israel and Judah....
But the description of various 'miracles' is a bit of a stretch, considering that it's hard to find corroborative evidence elsewhere. Also, some of the years that these early folks were supposed to live to is difficult to accept. I mean, Methuselah living to 969 years old - really!
In the end, I believe the Bible is a matter of faith. If you want to believe in it, that's fine, but don't hit us over the head with it, and try to tell us that it's a factual account of the state of Israel.... -
Message 22
Posted by grannieval (U3909013) on Friday, 7th August 2009
Just a thought.
I remember someone telling me that there was a suggestion from somewhere - sorry to be so vague - not my field I'm afraid - that the Old Testament events actually took place much further south, possibly in the Arabian peninsular.
Would this explain lack of archaeological evidence in Israel? -
Message 23
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Yes, but it wouldn't explain the lack of archaeological evidence in Arabia.
-
Message 24
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Saturday, 15th August 2009
I'm not sure about the lack of archaeological evidence in Israel, I thought it was there, its more like that certain events are attributed to different time periods.
Like the massive walls of Jericho did not exist in the Late Bronze, or Iron I, but much earlier in the Middle Bronze.
Anyway, there is a book by Kamal Salibi, The Bible came from Arabia, 1985.
I don't recall there being any archaeological evidence to support his claim. This book only looks for phonetic similarities of place-names in Arabia that, in his view, can be equated with like sounding place-names in the Old Testament.
Regards.. -
Message 25
Posted by OldKingCole2007 (U9190432) on Friday, 21st August 2009
Has anyone read "The Bible As History" (published in the 1970's I think). The author makes numerous correlations between archaeology and the OT, and whilst some are obviously more flimsy than others, some certainly seem to stand the test.
I don't have it to hand at the mo, but will be happy to quote/cite examples from it if it would help.
Certainly the upshot is that in comparison to say any of the Ancient Egyptian texts, the OT is THE source text of the period(s) in question. If the OT can't be 'proven', can ANY ancient text be proved by archaeology??? -
Message 26
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 21st August 2009
Only a very confident fool would aver categorically either that the ancient Jewish scriptures were complete historical fabrications or that they were completely true historically. Archaeology has done a good job in recreating plausible contexts to the sometimes specific, but more often vague, references to events which the scriptures describe as actual. It has also been more than useful in highlighting where such claims were patently false. It has been less than absolute than it really should have been (largely due, it must be said, to agenda-driven quarrelling amongst its practitioners) with regard to finalising a time-line of events.
Attempting to use archaeology to "prove" the text as a whole would be rather silly. -
Message 27
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 21st August 2009
I'm sure (like most people's early history) there is a basis of 'truth' in the Old Testament. Coloured by later perceptions, expansions of nicer bits, removal of dodgier bits, adjustment of less exciting bits, etc, - again, just like most other people's history.
Only the real nutters believe that every word, every nuance, every comma (however badly translated) is the literal truth! -
Message 28
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Friday, 21st August 2009
giraffe,
Plenty of them (literalists) on the R&E Boards !
Gary Greenbergs '101 Biblical Myths' is very interesting.
His analysis is more to do with translation and how older myths were incorporated into the biblical narrative found in the Pentateuch.
It's a fascinating read.
He touches on the archaeology (or rather the lack of it). -
Message 29
Posted by SARGONID (U14121283) on Sunday, 30th August 2009
Well we know that the Flood Story for example actually comes from Mesopotamian mythology, and pre dates the Hebrews, we also know that the Tower of Babel did not exist as portrayed in the O.T, after all Assyrio-Babylonian contemporary records do not mention it. And my ancestors were quite boastful! lol
The Hebrews lived originally in Ancient Mesopotamia circa 1800BCE, and were massively influenced by Assyrian, Babylonian and Sumewrian culture, the 10 Commandments may have been influenced by Mesopotamian written law, likewise the Creation myth. -
Message 30
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Sunday, 30th August 2009
Certainly the Biblical Flood story finds its greatest parallels in Mesopotamian mythologies but the Creation myth finds its greatest parallel in Egyptian mythologies.
I have posted on this topic elsewhere but Gary Greenberg covers much of the detail in that book previously mentioned by delrick53, 101 Myths of the Bible (post #28).
Wickerman
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.