Archaeologica.org

Think how much it would annoy the Muslims!

That's never difficult!
Racist comment, bring on the thought police!

Roy.

I'll bet the Archbishop of Canterbury would be pretty pissed-off, too!

We've given up on him as well!

Roy.

Digit wrote:Modern Hebrew, as used in every day communication, is different from the classical language as used in the Shule. The language has evovled as all languages do, and taking up the subject of itenerent tribes people the word Hebrew seems to have evolved either from 'Avar', meaning to 'cross over', or from 'Ever', meaning to 'traverse'.

Roy.

Yes, I'm aware of that meaning from Hebrew. I was a language major (European languages), but have studied the ways languages evolve, the roots that philologists (or linguists as we usually call them in the US) use for grouping linguistic families, etc. "Cross over," "pass over," and "transit" are some of the root meanings given for the word Hebrew. Coincidentally (or not) that meaning would also apply to the wandering bands of herders called Habiru who appear in letters from the Near East comlaining that they crossed over borders without regard to nationalities, raided farms and villages, commandered land for their herds and flocks, and joined armies as mercenaries without regard for allegiances, or switched (crossed-over) allegiances often. The complaint along those lines are particularly strong throughout the Near East, especially in Egyptian provinces of Canaan, in letters to Egypt asking for assistance in dealing with them - around 1300 BC. Ccoincidentally, again, that's around the time usually attributed to the arrival of "Israelite" tribes in Canaan, looking for a homeland to settle in - or return to, if part of those wandering clans descended from people who had left the region earlier during the droughts.

Coincidentally (or not) that meaning would also apply to the wandering bands of herders called Habiru

That was my point jw. As you say, could be coincidental but looks to be a reasonale idea though.

Roy.

Yeah, but when even Biblical Archaeology Review dismisses the idea........


http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp ... rticleID=9

It is time to clarify for BAR readers the widely discussed relationship between the habiru, who are well documented in Egyptian and Near Eastern inscriptions, and the Hebrews of the Bible. There is absolutely no relationship!

I have to stop you right there, jw, because you are preceding from a false premise.

That’s possible, I guess, but I think you might be misunderstanding my premise, which is my fault for not stating it more clearly.

I agree that the people who were deported to Babylon were Canaanites. But, as Davies himself says, there were several ethnic identities in Canaan at the time of the deportation - tribes, clans, rural farmers and urban descendants of older civilizations and city-states, and newer, nomadic arrivals.

My premise is this, in three parts: 1) The ethnic identity of Jews (regardless of whether they called themselves that) already existed and their religion had already begun to evolve toward monotheism in Canaan prior to deportation. 2) The identity continued to exist during captivity. 3) In the post-deportation period, the identity went through a serious change known in cultural anthropology as a revitalization movement. Davies is making a mistake in concluding that the archaeological absence of a “first” temple from pre-deportation days and the scarcity of non-Biblical documentation means that Judah and the Jewish ethnic and religious identity were a political creation of Persians out of Babylonians.

I agree with Davies that Persians had a political stake in encouraging people to maintain their own identity. It was the Persian MO with other conquered people as well. Davies is right in noting a significant difference between pre-deportation Canaanites and post-deportation Jews, but I believe that he’s mistaken in seeing no internal continuity of identity or desire to recapture a past. In the post-captivity period, that past became idealized, mythologized, and grew into a merged collection of related cultures, beliefs, and legendary histories under the dominance of one faction of the returning people.

The Biblical legends show several signs of a revitalization movement, the kind that takes place when tribal people encounter sociological disruption and conquest by a stronger civilization. Anthropologist Anthony Wallace first analysed these types of changes among Native tribal people in North America, but as he analyzed and documented cultural and religious changes in other societies, he found that the basic principles apply to human cultural developments in general, and not just to tribal peoples.

Wallace’s background and studies:

http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/0803247923
(click on “read more” for a good general description of Wallace’s work)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revitalization_movements
Short paragraph on Wallace’s definition of revitalization movements

A very brief PowerPoint summary of the revitalization concept here, but I couldn’t make it into an active link.

staffwww.fullcoll.edu/mmonreal/Ch9Lehmantext.revised.ppt

This is a longer (but quick read) PowerPoint description of religious and cultural syncretism and revitalization movements. Pages 14-20 and 29-41 are more pertinent than the rest to our discussion here.

virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/ottej/Lectures/...

The exclusiveness that Davies mentions in the link you provided is a classic trait of a revitalization movement within a society. Such movements frequently are characterized by belief in restoring an idealized (often exaggerated) past greatness based on revised stories (re-written history) of the virtuous examples of legendary founding heroes, some of whom might actually be historic but take on mythic qualities.

Why does Davies deny the existence of Judah as an enduring ethnic identity prior to deportation? There might not have been a United Kingdom of Israel and Judah (although I suspect a cultural and religious relationship between them), but there was a political state called Israel and an identity known as Judahite, with its own ruler. The Biblical accounts of them are exaggerated with nationalistic and pious pride, not to mention historical re-writes, but they were real entities mentioned by other people of the region. The Misha stele confirms the existence of Israel and its worship of Yahweh. The Sennacherib prism confirms the existence of Judah and its ruler, Hezekiah.

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/sennprism3.html

As for Hezekiah the Judahite, 19who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as 20the small towns in their area, 21which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams 22and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, 23by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 24200,150 people, great and small, male and female, 25horses, mules, asses, camels, 26cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them 27and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird 28I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. … As for Hezekiah, 38the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and 39the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen 40Jerusalem, his royal city, 41deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and 42eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, 43jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, 44ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, 45ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, 46as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female 47musicians, which he had brought after me 48to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute 49and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers.

Sennacherib mentions 46 walled cities as well as small towns. He refers to Jerusalem as Hezekiah’s royal city. The items mentioned as tribute from Hezekiah sound like he (Hezekiah) had some degree of wealth himself.

I have no argument with the fact that the pre and post exile ethnic and religious identities of the Jews were different. My argument is with the claim that there’s no pre and post exile continuity of identity and that Persians created the post exile identity.

Regarding the “first” temple, is it possible that it really did exist and that its foundations lie below the Dome of the Rock, claimed as a holy site by both Muslims and Jews? Fat chance of doing an excavation there. Wouldn’t be the first or only time that one religion would build a sacred monument on the site of a previous one. Christians did that all the time, building churches on sites of Pagan worship. Sometimes it’s done as a deliberate usurpation of the site. Other times, especially if the cultures and religions share similar languages, customs and histories, the decision to build on an old sacred site is a belief that the site itself has some type of sacred quality to it.

1) The ethnic identity of Jews (regardless of whether they called themselves that) already existed and their religion had already begun to evolve toward monotheism in Canaan prior to deportation

Yes, that is the basis of the discussion from which the other points flow and it probably has to be settled before the discussion can move on. There is no doubt that Judah, as a kingdom (or perhaps, a disloyal vassal state!) existed. As you say, it is noted in Assyrian and Babylonian records. But what we lack is any indication that they were monotheistic or truly different in any meaningful way from other Canaanites.

We simply cannot know what degree of historical revisionism was put on these existing trappings. "David" was probably little more than an ignorant village chieftain. There is no indication that "Solomon" existed at all. In fact, only a handful of Judahite kings are attested in the record and usually as vassals or rebels. Someone seeking to construct a glorious past turns around and attributes all of these stories to "Yahweh" and makes all of the heroes of the stories devoted followers of Yahweh and all the enemies as deviants from the will of the lord. How convenient.

There are two divergent points here, though. Davies' idea is that the people sent out to govern were given a doctrine to show their pedigree to do so. They were the upper class, amputated by the Babylonians and blissfully restored by Cyrus (who was doing what Yahweh wanted him to do....again, how convenient!) But there is no way in hell that the Persians would have allowed or fostered the delusions of grandeur which now accompany the texts of David, Solomon and Josiah. The Persians were in charge and no imperial power teaches worms that they can fly. So one is left with the Hasmonean period for the derivation of this later development of a glorious history. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that the boundaries of the late 2d century Hasmonean kingdom virtually mirror David's legendary kingdom?

I don't like coincidences.

Regarding the “first” temple, is it possible that it really did exist and that its foundations lie below the Dome of the Rock, claimed as a holy site by both Muslims and Jews?

Anything is possible, I suppose. It would mean that an insignificant little 10th century village built a "temple." The built up area of 10th century Jerusalem is a few hectares supporting a population of perhaps, 1,000. Could they have had a mud hut for a temple which later generations glorified? Sure. As David and Solomon got bigger so did their temple!

But, even the OT tells us that the Canaanites worshiped at "high places" and "sacred groves" and Mt Moriah would definitely constitute a "high place" in Jerusalem. That could also account for your observation about certain places getting a reputation for being "holy" and recycled by later cults. Hard to say.

All we can really say is that we do not have a single artifact from any "first temple."

I wouldn't be so certain of the 'mud hut' though Min, though I equally wouldn't dismiss it.
Here in the UK we have some magnificient religious edifices that seem to have been erected by tiny communities.
Here in my parish you might be able to rake up a few dozen households, not all of whom would be either religious or wealthy enough to contribute, yet we have our own non-conformist chapel. Now sadly in a state of decay.

Roy.

A euphemism, Dig. Frankly, I doubt they had enough water to make mud.

Rocks? Rocks they had.

Yep! I understood that Min but I suspect that it would have still been an impressive structure.
It didn't have to be finished over night of course, some European cathedrals have been centuries in construction.

Roy.

Agreed about the cathdrals, Roy, but the difference is that these were large communities which could presumably afford the labor and materials. I had this discussion at Jesus Never Existed which led to this:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ ... 8#msg17158

In, The Quest for Historical Israel, (published 2007) Mazar writes:

Quote
The only public, monumental temple excavated so far in northern Israel is the one discovered at Tel Dan.

And Tel Dan is so far north that it is closer to Damascus than Jerusalem. More important for the time, it was closer to Tyre and Sidon, too. One simply cannot rule out the influence of the Phoenicians.