Current Biblical Archaeology

[Minimalist]

This is why I rarely bother to employ any sort of 'reason' with you. You are a bible thumping shithead who cannot tolerate any dissent when it comes to your precious belief system...no matter how stupid it is to rational human beings.

You cite scholars from 1913 and think that they should be accorded status as....as what? Modern?

You come up with a book from a professor at a divintiy school who is not about to bite the hand that feeds him. You accuse archaeologists of having an 'agenda' to destroy your fucking bible but any moron with a divinity degree who writes a book portraying the bible as 'right' has no agenda?

Next time you complain about being treated like a shithead, remember this discussion. You are a joke, arch, and so is your Jesus.

[Minimalist]

I'll give you someone else to add to your conspiracy of bible bashers.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/jerusalem.htm

The history of Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages is usually based on an analysis of written sources—the Bible and some archaeological texts and documents, such as the 14th-century B.C.E. Amarna letters from Egypt. Archaeological materials from Jerusalem itself are then used to clarify and confirm this picture. However, I shall proceed here from the opposite direction, starting with the archaeological evidence from the site.

Most of the Late Bronze Age material recovered from Jerusalem has come from tombs, especially one on the Mount of Olives that contained hundreds of pots, mainly of local ware, and from a pit south of the city, which held some pottery and a scarab.(3) North of the Old City, the remains of what may have been an Egyptian temple were also excavated.(4)

But no remains of a town, let alone a city, have ever been found: not a trace of an encircling wall, no gate, no houses. Not a single piece of architecture. Simply nothing!(5)

[Guest]

read the book and stop being pig headed. you know they used to teach that 'judging a book by its cover ' was wrong.

This is why I rarely bother to employ any sort of 'reason' with you

you are not working from reason and chapter two points out 2 fallacies that minimalists base their arguments on but of course as you do anything you will deny it unless it comes from your point of view.

his being a professor and a believer doesn't discount or disqualify him from being used. only those who are afraid of the truth seek to eliminate sources.

[Minimalist]

I've still got your 60 year old Flood book to read....that should be a hoot... in my cart at Amazon. Getting close to placing the order, though.

You cannot seem to get it through your head that Finkelstein is NOT a Minimalist in the sense of Thompson. Now, I realize that in your mind anyone who casts any doubt on your book of magic spells is the devil incarnate but there are subtleties which are obviously lost on bible-thumpers because they CANNOT admit any variance with the nonsense which is inscribed in 'the book' otherwise the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

You mention Shiloh, I check in Finkelstein's first book and the only mention of the place is while he recounts some bible stories. I have since checked his second book and here is the sum total of what is mentioned about Shiloh:

Indeed, excavations in some of the more important mounds in this area revealed evidence for public construction and clues for significant administrative activity: an elaborate storage facility at Shiloh (reported in the Bible as a central shrine in the later days of the period of the judges) and a possible continuity of activity in the ancient monumental temple of Shechem."

That's it, and I rather doubt that was what your boy was referring to because this book was only published in 2006. Even if he has access to earlier professional journals which are not available to the general public it sure as shit does not seem as if Finkelstein is making a big deal about the place. At no point in his works does Finkelstein say that there is no historical truth in any of the bible....as Thompson does. As I have tried to show you before, the argument among non-bible-thumping archaeologists is at what point does the bible begin to accurately reflect the history which the artifacts coming out of the ground. They piss and moan with each other over a span of 125 years or so but none of them are arguing that the Torah is anything other than a late creation by priests.

BTW, Dever is far more critical of Finkelstein's origin theory than this guy and he makes a good case for the bulk of the Israelite population coming from Canaanite refugees rather than Finkelstein's settling nomads. Far too complex to go into here but the truth is probably that both groups came together as Canaan came apart and were forced to join in order to survive. But Dever has no issue with the Iron Age timing of the event and, of course, dismisses the patriarchs and Exodus as later creations.

his being a professor and a believer doesn't discount or disqualify him from being used

No, but I ascribe to him the same motivations that you insist about Finkelstein....only more so. He has a vested, personal, interest in keeping the fiction of biblical infallibility alive....otherwise they don't need him to teach other bible-thumpers at that divinity school of his. Finkelstein will always be an archaeologist no matter what he digs up.
Again, just quoting the bible means exactly shit. It has no more inherent veracity than any other book and given the fact that it is contradicted by almost everything that they find, it looks shakier and shakier.

I'll make you a deal. You read The Bible Unearthed and I'll read this thing that you're harping on.

[Guest]

n the christian world, dates are not that important as God set the example by not declaring when the beginning was or when the end will come. there is a good reason for that which may be explained at another time.

those who wish to discrdit or disprove the Bible find dates to be to their advantage for they are easily manipulated, changed , juggled or whatever. also, many of the theories out there take adantage of the subjectivity that is involved in this field. how easy itis to disagree with someone because there is so much evidence left buried somewhere in the sand.

it is a safe and popular trend to create conclusions based upon what is not found as it is easier to support such positions. taking the odds that nothing will be found to contradict their work while they are alive.

many people trumpet the minimalists because the minimalists have no interest in proving the Bible true and these researchers say what their supporters want to hear. big mistake when you look to science to provide answers.

but that is par for the course. honesty is the last thing you will find when dealing with researchers with much pressure on their shoulders. anyways, i have posted many quotes and pieces of evidence on this site that will lead you toward the truth and away from those who wish to quell such talk by their petty attempts to silence any post that disagrees with them.

thisis the wayit is in the world whetehr it is archaeology or evolution, those who do not believe do whatever they can to keep the truth hidden for their motivations are not honest nor to help their fellow man.

[Minimalist]

arch you are just as guilty as the people you condemn when you rely on magic books and superstititon.

[Minimalist]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/732068.html


Digging through an ancient garbage dump in Jerusalem.

[Minimalist]

More from Steiner's work....

THIS is what archaeology is about....not pretending that gods and demons are "real."

Thus, from the tenth century B.C.E. there is no archaeological evidence that many people actually lived in Jerusalem, only that it was some kind of public administrative center. But that is not the end of the problems. The dating of pottery from the beginning of Iron Age II has recently become the subject of considerable controversy. Pottery that has long been attributed to the tenth century B.C.E., based on a number of criteria, has recently been down-dated by several prominent scholars to the ninth century B.C.E.(26) According to the traditional view, hand-burnished pottery is a criterion of the early tenth century B.C.E. However, if it is dated to the late tenth or even the early ninth century B.C.E. (the new position), what we have said about the archaeological evidence of the tenth century B.C.E. no longer applies to the reigns of David and Solomon. We are left with nothing that indicates a city was here during their supposed reigns.

An important factor suggesting that this newer dating of the urbanization of Jerusalem may well be correct relates to the red slip that is considered so characteristic of early-tenth-century B.C.E. pottery in the traditional view. This red-slipped pottery is hardly found at all in Jerusalem. This may mean that even if we follow the traditional dating criteria, the Stepped-Stone Structure must be dated, based on the pottery, later than the early tenth century B.C.E.—after the time of David and Solomon.

In one respect, the difference between the early and late tenth century B.C.E. is not very important. We are really talking about the urbanization of Jerusalem: Were houses built here in the early or late tenth century B.C.E.? Does it really matter whether Jerusalem started to become a city where people lived in the early tenth century B.C.E. or 50 or 100 years later? But it is of crucial importance in terms of Biblical history. If we move down the date of this urbanization of Jerusalem, the reigns of King David and King Solomon, featured so prominently in the Biblical stories connected with Jerusalem, are severely threatened. If the new town of Jerusalem was founded only in the late tenth or early ninth century B.C.E., then it was not done by these Biblical kings. There is simply no saving them.

What we can say, archaeologically, is that at some time in the tenth or early ninth century B.C.E., Jerusalem became a small town, occupied mainly by public buildings. It covered no more than 30 acres, including the Temple Mount area. No more than 2,000 people lived there. Because no trace of a town in the immediately preceding period has been discovered, we must assume that a new town was founded in Iron Age II, a town with impressive public buildings but only a small residential quarter. This indicates that the town functioned as a regional administrative center or as the capital of a small, newly established state. The large public works constructed in the tenth or early ninth century B.C.E. imply a concentration of power in the hands of an emerging elite with a growing supremacy over the surrounding region.

It seems unlikely, however, that this Jerusalem was the capital of a large state, the United Monarchy, as described in the Biblical texts.

Jerusalem was not very different from other towns in Palestine at this time—such as Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer and Lachish—all of which were small towns with the same characteristics: large fortifications, ashlar masonry, public buildings and hardly any residential areas. Based on the archaeological record alone, one would assume that these settlements were the seats of governments of several small regional states that only later fused into the historically attested states of Israel and Judah. The states of the Divided Monarchy—Israel and Judah—are mentioned in Assyrian and Babylonian documents and in the Mesha Stele. Here there is evidence for their existence outside the Bible. The United Monarchy, however, is not a historical fact.

[Minimalist]

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch3.html#jericho

Conservative archaeologist Dr. Bryant Wood, one of the few remaining defenders of a literal conquest, has put forward his own argument with regard to Jericho (Wood 1990). Wood's rather audacious claim is that the chronology of the site is substantially mistaken, and that the destruction of the city currently assigned to the Middle Bronze actually happened in the Late Bronze as a result of Joshua's conquest.

Less clear is how Wood's hypothesis accommodates the fact that there was a Late Bronze settlement, though a small one, at Jericho. According to the Bible, following Joshua's destruction Jericho was not rebuilt until the time of Hiel the Bethelite (1 Kings 16:34), a contemporary of King Ahab, whom we know to have reigned during the Iron Age and more specifically around 850 BCE. But as already stated, a LB resettlement does exist, although sparse; the one ceramic juglet found in situ is of "14th century BC type" (Bartlett 1982, p. 97). LB remains are also known from tombs associated with the site (Holland and Netzer 1992, p. 736). If MBII Jericho was destroyed by Joshua, who rebuilt and occupied it in the Late Bronze? Wood's hypothesis does not answer these questions.

Additionally, Wood's argument falters on an important point having to do with updated data that has become available since he first proposed it. One of Wood's arguments for dating the final MB city (which he calls City IV) to the Late Bronze has to do with carbon-14 dating; a sample of charcoal, labeled BM-1790, taken from the destruction layer of City IV was radiocarbon dated to 1410 BCE plus or minus 40 years (Wood 1990, p. 53). This would indeed fall within the Late Bronze Age. However, unfortunately for Wood's argument, this date is now known to be in error. The British Museum has issued a correction for radiocarbon dates published between 1980 and 1984 (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 59) - an error in equipment calibration made these dates, one of which is BM-1790, too young. The revised date falls within the range 1740 to 1440 BCE, which, while not ruling out Wood's dating, is also fully consistent with a Middle Bronze destruction.

Worse for Wood's argument, however, is the fact that additional radiocarbon dates have been published for Jericho City IV. If a tree is cut down and later burned for charcoal, the C-14 date will reflect the date the wood was cut rather than the date it was burned. However, this is not a problem with short-lived cereal grains, of which six samples were found in City IV. High-precision radiocarbon dates of these cereal samples yielded a date range from 1601 to 1524 BCE (Bruins and van der Plicht 1995, p. 218) - solidly contradicting Wood's chronology, which requires City IV to have been destroyed circa 1400 BCE.

And, confirming Kenyon's original estimation in the process!

[Guest]

sorry but it also allows for wood's conclusions so kenyon is wrong again. i also remain a firm critic of carbon 14 dating and other dating processes.

The British Museum has issued a correction for radiocarbon dates published between 1980 and 1984 (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 59) - an error in equipment calibration made these dates, one of which is BM-1790, too young

case in point.

[Minimalist]

sorry but it also allows for wood's conclusions so kenyon is wrong again.

yielded a date range from 1601 to 1524 BCE

That's 125 years too early for Wood. He's been discredited! Tough.

i also remain a firm critic of carbon 14 dating and other dating processes.

I'm sure the whole scientific community is just upset as all hell about what you think.

The British Museum has issued a correction for radiocarbon dates published between 1980 and 1984 (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 59) - an error in equipment calibration made these dates, one of which is BM-1790, too young

case in point.

Ah, so the fact that they check and correct errors troubles you? Far better to cling to superstititon and mythology and deny science, I suppose? Keep clinging to your infallible book of mythology if it makes you happy.

[Minimalist]

ROTFLMAO!


I'm watching one of those Bible Mystery shows on History International and they are talking about the supposed "Bible Code."

One guy applied the search mechanism to Herman Melville's Moby Dick and found references to the assassination of Kennedy, Indira Ghandi and Martin Luther King!

I always knew there was a reason I hated Moby Dick.

[Guest]

i just love how you keep posting to yourself

[Minimalist]

You always show up.

I can count on that.

[Guest]

anyways, before you claim there are problems with the Bible, contradictions or fairy tales (as you call them) etc., you should deal with the beam in your own eye first and in the eyes of those minamalists you quote:

"By using 'fiction' as her comparative category, (dorothy) Irvin iso facto assumes that the joseh and moses stories are also fictitious.(kenneth) Kitchen has also questioned irvin's aproach, describing it as 'the classic case of picking in advance one's comparitive material to achieve a desired result.'" pg. 80-1

you have yet to convince me that your approach, or frank's or you hero archaeologists are objective, honest, let alone scientific. you love making declatory statements or dimiss a book because of its age while you and others, i.e. doug weller, use old books yourselves.

it is a clear case of 'you can believe anythiing you want as long as it is my way.' which of course is niether objective nor scientific. you dismiss evidence for the simple reason you do not want to deal with anything outside of your accepted position.

so the ball is in your court now. prove to me that you and your sources are honest, unbiased, objective and scientific. though i already know you and they are not.