new discoveries

[Guest]

am not the one grabbing

here is why--- though i am not a dever fan evenhe agrees with me on this one:

http://megiddo.tau.ac.il/sciencearticle.html

But many other archaeologists believe that Finkelstein has not proven his case for altering the conventional chronology. For example, Seymour Gitin, director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, contests Finkelstein's assumption that pottery was necessarily exchanged between neighboring contemporaneous sites. Gitin, who co-directed excavations at the Philistine site of Ekron, says that no monochrome pottery has been found at Gezer, a nearby Canaanite city widely agreed to have existed at the same time. "Not one shard representing early Philistine culture has been found at Gezer," Gitin says. "How do you explain that?"

And William Dever, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who excavated Gezer--and unearthed a stone gate of similar design to that found at Megiddo, which he has dated to the 10th century based on the conventional pottery scheme--says that Finkelstein is "way out on a limb" with his chronological correction. "If anyone can prove to me this material is all 9th century B.C. and no Solomon ever lived, I don't care. But proof please, gentlemen, proof please!"

Dever adds that Finkelstein has given short shrift to the circumstantial evidence left by the invasion of Shoshenq I in about 926 B.C., which he believes supports the conventional view. Egyptian inscriptions list more than 100 cities that Shoshenq supposedly conquered--including Megiddo and Gezer. Excavations of more than 25 sites on the list have identified destruction layers that many archaeologists attribute to Shoshenq's invasion. Moreover, there is a characteristic difference in pottery styles--a shift from a hand-burnished to a wheel-burnished finish--in settlements built before and after these destruction layers. Dever and other archaeologists believe this hand-burnished pottery provides a chronological marker for the 10th century B.C. Finkelstein, on the other hand, disagrees, arguing that many of the destruction layers usually attributed to Shoshenq should be blamed on later 9th century B.C. invaders.

[Guest]

and here is another reason. this would support the biblical record of david and solomon being able to write at that time:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/6988.htm

Scholars say the discovery by Pittsburgh archaeologist Ron E. Tappy, a professor at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, is the most concrete evidence that Israelites were literate as early as the 10th century B.C.

"This is very rare. This stone will be written about for many years to come," Tappy said Wednesday at a news conference. "This makes it very historically probable there were people in the 10th century (B.C.) who could write."

the following:

But that is not crucial, he said, because "we have little epigraphic material from the 10th century in Israel, and so this substantially augments the material we have

given the amount of destruction jerusalem and other parts of the divided kingdom went through , is very understandable. those that sit back and do not take into account the invasions which would have removed or destroyed, documents, artifacts, pottery, and so on, are just looking for an excuse to dismiss the time period and its key players.

why would there be a lot of evidence left in or around a city that has had so much done to it over the centuries, then you must add in the weather and its destructive power. if Kitchen is right in his book, 'the Bible in its World, we must consider what has been blown away by the desert winds as well.

so to rely solely on physical evidence, or the lack thereof, for the acceptance or dismissal of the 10th century period, is not the smartest thing to do.

[Minimalist]

i am not the one grabbing, it is all those who seek to discredit the biblical account that grab at straws. but we shall see what kitchen has to say.

The bible discredits itself, arch. Don't blame scholars for pointing out its shortcomings.

[Minimalist]

am not the one grabbing

here is why--- though i am not a dever fan evenhe agrees with me on this one:

http://megiddo.tau.ac.il/sciencearticle.html

But many other archaeologists believe that Finkelstein has not proven his case for altering the conventional chronology. For example, Seymour Gitin, director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, contests Finkelstein's assumption that pottery was necessarily exchanged between neighboring contemporaneous sites. Gitin, who co-directed excavations at the Philistine site of Ekron, says that no monochrome pottery has been found at Gezer, a nearby Canaanite city widely agreed to have existed at the same time. "Not one shard representing early Philistine culture has been found at Gezer," Gitin says. "How do you explain that?"

And William Dever, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who excavated Gezer--and unearthed a stone gate of similar design to that found at Megiddo, which he has dated to the 10th century based on the conventional pottery scheme--says that Finkelstein is "way out on a limb" with his chronological correction. "If anyone can prove to me this material is all 9th century B.C. and no Solomon ever lived, I don't care. But proof please, gentlemen, proof please!"

Dever adds that Finkelstein has given short shrift to the circumstantial evidence left by the invasion of Shoshenq I in about 926 B.C., which he believes supports the conventional view. Egyptian inscriptions list more than 100 cities that Shoshenq supposedly conquered--including Megiddo and Gezer. Excavations of more than 25 sites on the list have identified destruction layers that many archaeologists attribute to Shoshenq's invasion. Moreover, there is a characteristic difference in pottery styles--a shift from a hand-burnished to a wheel-burnished finish--in settlements built before and after these destruction layers. Dever and other archaeologists believe this hand-burnished pottery provides a chronological marker for the 10th century B.C. Finkelstein, on the other hand, disagrees, arguing that many of the destruction layers usually attributed to Shoshenq should be blamed on later 9th century B.C. invaders.

One of these days, Arch, I am going to teach you to look at dates and get up to date research. It's why you still cling to Albright....he tells you what you want to hear and you think that is the end of the story. Science does not work like that....although religion does.

Anyway, the page you posted bears this at the bottom:

Volume 287, Number 5450 Issue of 7 Jan 2000, pp. 31 - 32
©2000 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science

A compilation of opinions, even Dever's which ended in January 2000 therefore does not take into account his later works. Unlike religious fanatics, scholars such as Dever can change their mind based on the production of evidence. In a 2003 work, entitled "Who Were The Early Israelites" Dever discusses his difference on chronology with Finkelstein and points out that they disagree by about 100 years. This is a slight revision from Dever's earlier work "What Did The Bible Writers Know" in which he jousts with Finkelstein by about 150 years.

As has been noted elsewhere, Amihai Mazar and Finkelstein disagree by a margin so minor that it is within the current +/- of radio carbon dating and thus they can argue over a few generations to their heart's content!

Back to Dever, though, In 2003 he wrote that he and Finkelstein were in total agreement on 8 major points:

1- All older models (meaning Albright and all your other bible thumping pals) are obsolete; in future the archaeological data will prevail, even over textual sources, including the Hebrew Bible.

2- The recent Israeli surveys, plus a few excavations, provide the critical information.

3- All the current evidence points to a demographic surge in Iron I, especially in the hill country. (translation = no conquest, no exodus, no moses, no miracles, etc...etc.)

4- The highland settlers were not foreign invaders, but came mostly from somewhere within Canaanite society.

and so on.

Are you sure you want to start citing Dever as a source? Because his minimal dispute with Finkelstein over dating is not going to salvage much of the OT.

And before you forget (because you have a tendency to forget things which do not support your beliefs, Dever is the foremost proponent of polytheism in the form of the worshipping of Canaanite gods by early Israelites.

You two would make strange allies!

[Minimalist]

and here is another reason. this would support the biblical record of david and solomon being able to write at that time:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/6988.htm

Scholars say the discovery by Pittsburgh archaeologist Ron E. Tappy, a professor at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, is the most concrete evidence that Israelites were literate as early as the 10th century B.C.

"This is very rare. This stone will be written about for many years to come," Tappy said Wednesday at a news conference. "This makes it very historically probable there were people in the 10th century (B.C.) who could write."

the following:

But that is not crucial, he said, because "we have little epigraphic material from the 10th century in Israel, and so this substantially augments the material we have

given the amount of destruction jerusalem and other parts of the divided kingdom went through , is very understandable. those that sit back and do not take into account the invasions which would have removed or destroyed, documents, artifacts, pottery, and so on, are just looking for an excuse to dismiss the time period and its key players.

why would there be a lot of evidence left in or around a city that has had so much done to it over the centuries, then you must add in the weather and its destructive power. if Kitchen is right in his book, 'the Bible in its World, we must consider what has been blown away by the desert winds as well.

so to rely solely on physical evidence, or the lack thereof, for the acceptance or dismissal of the 10th century period, is not the smartest thing to do.

You see, this is what is wrong with religious-types (and I have to assume that someone working for the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary is most definitely a "religious-type!) finding something. Immediately, they seek to attach every object to their fables. This comment from a review is instructive:

Though the part of the site where the inscription was found has only begun to be studied, preliminary results suggest that in the tenth century BCE Tel Zayit was associated with the highland culture of southern Canaan, not the coastal culture of the Philistine plain, and therefore it very well may have functioned as part of the new state being formed by Kings David and Solomon, with its capital at Jerusalem.

This site is in the lowlands, north of Lachish, west of Ashkelon and East of Hebron. It was found in a wall dated to a late 10th century destruction (Sheshong of Egypt immediately comes to mind around 925 BC.) A few lines of script were found but that it irrelevant since it is known that Hebrew was derived from Phoenecian. There is no way to know when the wall was BUILT...only that it was destroyed c 925. However, that does not stop Tappy from trotting out the glories of David and Solomon who, as shown by other archaeology, were squatting around dung fires in their mud huts...not "as part of a new state being formed by Kings David and Solomon with its capital at Jerusalem. Before Tel Zayit can be claimed to be representative of some glorious literacy in the Davidic Empire you need to show that there was a Davidic empire.


You have not done so, Arch.

http://www.zeitah.net/UpdateTelZayit.html

[Guest]

Back to Dever, though, In 2003 he wrote that he and Finkelstein were in total agreement on 8 major points:

who said he made the correct change? i sure didn't.

All older models (meaning Albright and all your other bible thumping pals) are obsolete

and dever and finkelstein have the right to make such a pronouncement? i think not.

All the current evidence points to a demographic surge in Iron I, especially in the hill country

this would not rule out moses, the exodus, or the conquest, but instead provide the first glimpse of evidence for stability after such events.

And before you forget (because you have a tendency to forget things which do not support your beliefs, Dever is the foremost proponent of polytheism in the form of the worshipping of Canaanite gods by early Israelites.

never said he was an ally, i found it strange that he took such a position but it is useful as it shows that even your side held beliefs that supported my side.

trotting out the glories of David and Solomon who, as shown by other archaeology, were squatting around dung fires in their mud huts...

correction, it has been HYPOTHESIZED not shown .

you need to show that there was a Davidic empire.

i have done so, you just don't accept the source material, you are theone who would have to prove that they did not exist. i have the documents, you only have theory.

[Minimalist]

Back to Dever, though, In 2003 he wrote that he and Finkelstein were in total agreement on 8 major points:

who said he made the correct change? i sure didn't.

And who the hell asked you for your opinion?

All older models (meaning Albright and all your other bible thumping pals) are obsolete

and dever and finkelstein have the right to make such a pronouncement? i think not.

Based on the evidence they have uncovered...Yes. Clinging to outmoded theories from the past in the light of new discoveries is shortsighted to the extreme.

All the current evidence points to a demographic surge in Iron I, especially in the hill country

this would not rule out moses, the exodus, or the conquest, but instead provide the first glimpse of evidence for stability after such events.

Wrong, Arch. No Israelites in Egypt means no moses, no exodus, no joshua, no glorious conquest, no parting of the red sea, no angel of death. Kind of guts the whole thing, don't it?

And before you forget (because you have a tendency to forget things which do not support your beliefs, Dever is the foremost proponent of polytheism in the form of the worshipping of Canaanite gods by early Israelites.

never said he was an ally, i found it strange that he took such a position but it is useful as it shows that even your side held beliefs that supported my side.

That's because you still think that when archaeologists disagree with each other it means you are right. They disagree with each other by a minimal amount, down to a century in Dever's case and a half century or so in Mazar's. That leaves no room for any of your "miracles."

trotting out the glories of David and Solomon who, as shown by other archaeology, were squatting around dung fires in their mud huts...

correction, it has been HYPOTHESIZED not shown .

It is exactly the kind of sensationalizing that Albright used to do when he claimed that every rock he dug up was something that moses had pissed on. There is absolutely no reason to suggest literacy or Israelites or David and Solomon but that is exactly what your boy did. They do that for a reason....to fire up the believers into thinking that these fables are real. Later, when it is quietly announced that the writing is Phoenecian (which....is exactly what we should find!) all you will remember is that some guy found evidene of David's kingdom. Then we will have this whole argument all over again.

You know the truth is that contrary to what Tappy suggests, the fact is that a compelling case could be made for ignorant goatherders building a wall out of the relics of a far more advanced civilization....which Canaan would have been in the LBA.

you need to show that there was a Davidic empire.

i have done so, you just don't accept the source material, you are theone who would have to prove that they did not exist. i have the documents, you only have theory.

Your 'source material' is the bible or 'scholars' who quote the bible. There is no room temporally or physically for a Davidic empire in the mid-10th century. It was a later creation by scribes and priests to give their new kingdom a 'glorious' past. When it comes to history your "documents" have been shown to be worthless. You have no artifacts to back up the words.

[Guest]

And who the hell asked you for your opinion?

I did.

You have no artifacts to back up the words.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/david__ ... ..[/quote]

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/david__ ... _reho.html

[Guest]

and there is this tidbit----

http://www.planetware.com/israel/hazor-isr-nr-hz.htm

[Minimalist]

and there is this tidbit----

http://www.planetware.com/israel/hazor-isr-nr-hz.htm

What "tidbit?" Yigal Yadin's work has been superseded by the current crop of Israeli archaeologsists who regard him as a founder even while showing that he was wrong in lots of cases.

[Minimalist]

We have discussed the Tel Dan stele, extensively. Finkelstein uses it as his primary argument against the Copenhagen School which claims that the whole thing was a work of fiction written in Hellenistic times.

Nonetheless, the story it tells DOES NOT support the bible. If the reconstruction of the stone (which was smashed in a subsequent building project) does say House of David...and there is some dispute on that...then the rest of the story tells of two kings being killed in battle against Aram-Damascus. The bible story attributes the deaths to one, Jehu, who led a revolt and killed David's ancestor sort of as collateral damage, to use the modern term.

So, the House of David reference helps you on one hand but hurts on the other. Life is rarely fair, is it?

As for the Sheshonq thing....research would be pretty easy if you could look at something and say "well....if they wrote these letters WRONG then it means something completely different. Sheshonq's inscription of his campaign shows that he did not attack Jerusalem. Instead he aimed farther north at the growing center of Israelite power.

Finkelstein has a perfectly logical explanation for this. Jersualem was not worth the detour at the time.

[Guest]

i still have artifacts and when i am finished reading kitchen i may have more to talk about.

[Minimalist]

That's fine.

Artifacts = good. Fairy Tales = bad.

[Guest]

kitchen is actually quite good. his book "on the Reliability of the Old Testament" is thorough and well reasoned and for those who will not be buying a copy i will be quoting from it later.

for now i have done some research and have come up with some links to substantiate the case for a 10th century israel:

we have seen this one before and it deserves repeating:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457410/posts

Other scholars are skeptical that the foundation walls discovered by the archaeologist, Eilat Mazar, are David's palace. But they acknowledge that what she has uncovered is rare and important: a major public building from around the 10th century B.C., with pottery shards that date to the time of David and Solomon and a government seal of an official mentioned in the book of Jeremiah

the next one is here solely for logical purposes, make note of the greek reference:

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/biblei ... rchist.htm

The fact that Israel was not completely destroyed means Israel was not just a small tribe. The Greeks existed as a people during the Trojan War, 900 years before they became a world power. Considering that Europeans first began settling the new world after 1500 AD, and that the United States only became a nation in 1776 AD, with massive immigration, we can see that Israel’s origins must be at least 200 to 300 years prior to Merneptah. Two hundred years before Merneptah would be the 15th century B.C.

this one minimalist may not like the participants but they do uncover evidence for Solomon:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23651

This year's excavations have revealed more than 40 meters of a massive fortification system associated with the six-chambered gate common in the building projects of King Solomon. Solomon’s extensive building projects are recorded in the biblical account of his activities throughout his kingdom and at his capital city of Jerusalem (1 Kings 9:15-17).

i have finished reading this one yet but here is a blurb on dating:

Radiocarbon analysis of charred wood, grain, and fruit in several sediment layers revealed two major phases of copper processing, first in the 12th and 11th centuries, later in the 10th and 9th centuries.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/14/ ... snedom.php

and finally one about construction, since many of the subsequent kings were not known to be builders, it stands to reason they would be using the same structures that Solomon built and to assume a later construction date would be fool hardy. it is like saying that the empire state building was built at the same time as the new world trade center. same type of construction, different centuries. or a 17th century house compared to a 21st century one, same similar construction methods and materials, different centuries.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... srael.html

The exhibition is an outgrowth of a recent book by Lawrence Stager, the Dorot Professor of the Archaeology of Israel, and Philip King, professor emeritus of biblical studies at Boston College. The book, "Life in Biblical Israel" (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), brings together practically everything that is known about ancient Israel ranging from food, clothing, and family relationships to the esoteric concepts of religious life.

moreon these later, i need to get read for work.

[Minimalist]

for now i have done some research and have come up with some links to substantiate the case for a 10th century israel:

NO ONE, (aside from the Copenhagen School) is saying there was no 10th century Israel.

What they are saying is that there was no glorious Davidic Empire that stretched from Sinai to the Euphrates.

Big difference.