Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

[Minimalist]

Have you noticed that many people have a great deal of difficulty imagining anything too far outside of their own experience? I recall Bill Maher discussing this issue on one of his specials and saying something like "have you noticed that aliens on TV aren't all that different from us? They look just like us except....a metal eyebrow."

I just wonder why any set of beings sophisticated enough to be able to cross the vast distances involved would want to do so just to check out our butts.

I always considered that one of the main failings of Von Daniken. He never could explain why they would come, why they would stop and, for that matter, why they wouldn't just take the whole damn place over if they wished?

[Minimalist]

Why can you put more confidence in the Herodotus' Histories?
What makes them superior?

That's a fair question, kb. For example, Herodotus discusses the building of the pyramids but his version has universally been dismissed by archaeology.

He claimed that Xerxes brought an army of over 2 million to Greece. The number is flat out ludicrous.

He claimed 4 separate variations for the derivation of the Scythians...3 of which are clearly mythological.

In fact, when put to the test, most of Herodotus has been discounted.

[Forum Monk]

Herodotus was known as the father of history and the father of lies. Like the bible he states many historical facts now confirmed but one must read him cautiously. During his travels he often repeated local stories and myths as if facts and many heavily biased points of view without any attempt to verify the truth.

[Minimalist]

"History is a lie, agreed upon."

--Napoleon Bonaparte

[seeker]

The OT avers that there was a Judean king named Hezekiah. Assyrian records indicate that they kicked the ass of a Judean king named Hezekiah.
It therefore seems probable that there was, in fact, a king named Hezekiah who got his ass kicked by the Assyrians. The only way around that is to assert that the "Assyrians" were in on the plot to falsify history which seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Nonetheless, Hezekiah's existence does not prove that other elements of the story (such as his righteousness in the eyes of the "lord") have a bit of credibility. Hezekiah could have been a worshipper of Baal and we wouldn't know anything of it because the later writers/editors of the OT decided to make him one of their heroes.

More likely it infers that whoever wrote Kings made a reference to a known historical figure to give his story credibility. Both the Babylonians and the Persians would have had access to Assyrian writings.

[seeker]

Why can you put more confidence in the Herodotus' Histories?
What makes them superior?

Think about it. Herodotus was making no religious or political point. The big flaw with Herodotus was that he was a lottle too uncritical in repeating local stories but his redemption was that he was attempting a faithful retelling of what he observed and saw.

The problem with the bible as historical document is that its descriptions of events and retold stories are all heavily overlaid with the religio-political views it is espousing.

[Minimalist]

More likely it infers that whoever wrote Kings made a reference to a known historical figure to give his story credibility.

But that's what Mazar is saying. There are "historical tidbits" contained in the narrative. Some archaeology can sustain, some it has overturned and some are simply not within the purview of archaeology.

Samaria is a good example. The OT asserts that the Omrides built the place and occupied it for 20 years or so. It was then destroyed and never rebuilt. Archaeology has confirmed only a single settlement and a single destruction layer at the site. That has to be more than a lucky guess by someone writing 3 centuries later.

Of course, it does nothing to establish that Ahab and Jezebel were having orgies there or any of the rest of the OT chrome that has been hung on the tale but the town existed.

[seeker]

More likely it infers that whoever wrote Kings made a reference to a known historical figure to give his story credibility.

But that's what Mazar is saying. There are "historical tidbits" contained in the narrative. Some archaeology can sustain, some it has overturned and some are simply not within the purview of archaeology.

Samaria is a good example. The OT asserts that the Omrides built the place and occupied it for 20 years or so. It was then destroyed and never rebuilt. Archaeology has confirmed only a single settlement and a single destruction layer at the site. That has to be more than a lucky guess by someone writing 3 centuries later.

Of course, it does nothing to establish that Ahab and Jezebel were having orgies there or any of the rest of the OT chrome that has been hung on the tale but the town existed.

The problem is that the 'historical tidbits' are references buried under layers of romanticized religio-political propoganda. It's a bit like studying life on the Mississippi in the 1800's by reading Huckleberry Finn. In fact Omri is a very good example, the bible minimizes Omri when he was, in fact, the head of a dynasty and quite possibly the first Israelite king.

[Ishtar]

We've been talking about 360 day calendars in another thread. Apparently, they were used in Egypt, India, Sumeria and all over the Middle East until the 8th century.

In my research, I also discovered that the one of the prophecies in Revelations is based on the 360 day calendar:

http://www.360calendar.com/bible-prophe ... edited.htm

They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1260 days, clothed in sackcloth," (Rev. 11:2b,3).

They are saying 42 months because that equals 1260 days, which is three and a half years. This fits with the two other mentions of three and a half years which is described as "time, and times and half a time" in both the book of Revelations and the post-exilic Daniel:

"The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1260 days...And there were given to the woman the two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness unto her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." (Rev. 12:6, 14).

"The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time.* When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed," (Daniel 12:7).

But in Daniel, they throw in an intercalary month:

The N.I.V.'s interpretation of "time, times and half a time" as '3-½ years' is obviously correct since this phrase is paralleled with the number "1290 days," found only four verses later in the same chapter, (1290 days equals 3-½ years):

"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1335 days," (Dan. 12:11-12).

So I wonder why Revelations used a 360 day calendar. Would this not indicate that it must have been composed pre 8th century BC, when calendars all over the world switched to 365 days?

[Forum Monk]

So I wonder why Revelations used a 360 day calendar. Would this not indicate that it must have been composed pre 8th century BC, when calendars all over the world switched to 365 days?

Many modern eschotologists hold to a 360 day "prophetic" year. There is some merit to idea as many cultures use a 365 civil calendar and 360 day or lunar based ceremonial or "temple" calendar. There are many interesting parallels between, as you point out, Daniel and Revelation but I am reluctant to fully accept the 360 day calendar idea.

There are many interpretations of the book of Revelation. I tend to think it relates to the Roman Empire and its occupation of Palestine and therefore think it was written sometime after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed, as it speaks of a new temple and city descending from heaven.

[Forum Monk]

Nonetheless, Hezekiah's existence does not prove that other elements of the story (such as his righteousness in the eyes of the "lord") have a bit of credibility. Hezekiah could have been a worshipper of Baal and we wouldn't know anything of it because the later writers/editors of the OT decided to make him one of their heroes.

Min, would you then suggest that the many kings who were not shown in a wonderful light were just thrown in to make the narrative appear more accurate? The Kings and the Chronicles exposed the good, bad and ugly of the kingdoms. I feel many of the narratives are real enough and then are exploited to illustrate the religious principles behind the narrative.

It's a bit like studying life on the Mississippi in the 1800's by reading Huckleberry Finn. In fact Omri is a very good example, the bible minimizes Omri when he was, in fact, the head of a dynasty and quite possibly the first Israelite king.

If you had no other references about river life in the 1800s you would not be far from the truth in reading Twain. You seem to be criticizing 18th and 19th century archaeologists in the light of 21st century scholarship. Archaeology and religious studies have moved on.

[seeker]

Nonetheless, Hezekiah's existence does not prove that other elements of the story (such as his righteousness in the eyes of the "lord") have a bit of credibility. Hezekiah could have been a worshipper of Baal and we wouldn't know anything of it because the later writers/editors of the OT decided to make him one of their heroes.

Min, would you then suggest that the many kings who were not shown in a wonderful light were just thrown in to make the narrative appear more accurate? The Kings and the Chronicles exposed the good, bad and ugly of the kingdoms. I feel many of the narratives are real enough and then are exploited to illustrate the religious principles behind the narrative.

The Problem is in determining what was real and what was inserted to make a religious point.

It's a bit like studying life on the Mississippi in the 1800's by reading Huckleberry Finn. In fact Omri is a very good example, the bible minimizes Omri when he was, in fact, the head of a dynasty and quite possibly the first Israelite king.

If you had no other references about river life in the 1800s you would not be far from the truth in reading Twain. You seem to be criticizing 18th and 19th century archaeologists in the light of 21st century scholarship. Archaeology and religious studies have moved on.

Actually I'm criticizing the practice if assuming the conclusion before examining the evidence. It just happens that was a more prominent method early on in archaeology in earlier years. The situation has moved on a little but there are still too many archaeologists out there trying to fit the evidence into a biblical story rather than trying to see what the evidence actually says on its own.

Sure, Huckleberry Finn could give you some insights into how people lived and some of the politics of the time although you would want to consider Mark Twains point of view.

[Minimalist]

I feel many of the narratives are real enough and then are exploited to illustrate the religious principles behind the narrative.

That's an opinion, Monk, and you're totally free to hold it. But we have no actual evidence to sustain it other than what is written in the OT and that is the record that is under discussion. I can "prove" Scarlett O'Hara existed if the only book I use is Gone With The Wind.

Hezekiah did have a great impact on the country ruling at a time when archaeology does show an enormous amount of growth in urbanized area and population. We have never found a single artifact from the "first temple" which gives any support to the Yahweh-alone club of later biblical writings. Nada. After a while that starts to look suspicious. Excessive reliance on the OT has severely damaged any attempt to understand the history of the region. I understand the desire of the religious to want to believe that their stories are true but actual "evidence" is sadly lacking.

Nonetheless, I still agree with Mazar that, used with caution, there are some historical memories contained in the text and this is not uncommon. Gone With the Wind gives a broadly accurate account of the civil war: The South started it, the North won it. The key, as seeker has pointed out as well as Mazar, is that those historical references are buried under layers of moralizing and someone's political agenda. Why is it that we have not found a single inscription about the glories of "Yahweh" but we have found inscriptions about Yahweh and his consort, Asherah? Why is it that we have found statuettes of Fertility Goddesses in Judea? The indications that we actually have found are that the Judaeans were not monotheistic at this time period.

I'll grant you that, as an atheist, I have a lot less problem than others in dismissing the OT tales as simply that...tales. That does not change the fact that when it comes to actual evidence to sustain the picture painted in the OT we have damn little.

[Forum Monk]

The situation has moved on a little but there are still too many archaeologists out there trying to fit the evidence into a biblical story rather than trying to see what the evidence actually says on its own.

I personally think you will find the objectives and conclusions are defined by the guy with the wallet.

[Forum Monk]

That's an opinion, Monk, and you're totally free to hold it. But we have no actual evidence to sustain it other than what is written in the OT and that is the record that is under discussion.

True. And this is where science can get selective depending on which side of the ideological fence one sits. For example. There is absolutely NO evidence of extra-terrestial life, even the most basic, unintelligent forms, and yet, many scientists believe life, not of this earth exists.

If one uses the kinds of arguments put forth by Dawkins to rebut the belief that God exists, one must totally reject the idea because there is not a single shred of proof. And so belief in E.T. becomes an act of faith.

So how are the rules of science applied? Its the old saying "lack of evidence..." True, the archaeological evidence is sparse which supports much of the OT, but as Seeker has pointed out earlier - much evidence remains untranslated, uninvestigated, and uninterpreted in private holdings or warehouses.