Archaeologica.org

Frank Harrist wrote:The first two finds are interesting. We've already discussed the first one. The third find, about the name smilar to Goliath, means nothing. In case I haven't stated this before, I just want to say that I think parts of the old testament are based on fact, loosely, with the possible exception of genesis, which seems to be a complete fairy tale. It's all been embellished to give it more impact and the timelines are vague at best. Having said that I must also say that I think the new testament is total bull.

At best the bible is an amalgam of ancient traditions of both the Israelite and Judean kingdoms, melded together by priests to create some sort of history/rational for expansion. That would explain some of the duplications and contradictions which the faithful are apparently willing to overlook because they don't like to think of their god as being 'confused.'

After a long period of isolation from events of the world, in which the northern kingdom of Israel grew wealthy, Finklestein reports that the Assyrians changed their method of operation and began to make demands on their former vassals in Damascus and Israel. In an apparent effort to get Judea to join in an alliance agains the Assyrians, the Kings of Israel and Damascus marched south.

Ahaz, king of Judea, apparently did the math and figured out that there was no way in hell that these two would beat the Assyrians so he made himself a vassal of Assyria and paid them off to come to his assistance.
Archaeological finds confirm the biblical account and show Ahaz listed as one of Assyria's faithful vassals in an inscription. In Finklestein's view there was no treachery involved as Israel and Judea had never been one people/ one nation: this was simply smart power politics on the part of Ahaz.

So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.

And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the lord, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria.

What amazes me is how much from other religions, existing at that time and before, show up in the beliefs of Christianity. You have Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Persian, Zoroastrianism, to name a few. If fact, I wonder if there's anything original about it.

I wonder if there's anything original about it.

Superior marketing and more inclusive attitude towards women, at least initially.

Leona Conner wrote:What amazes me is how much from other religions, existing at that time and before, show up in the beliefs of Christianity. You have Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Persian, Zoroastrianism, to name a few. If fact, I wonder if there's anything original about it.

Exactly the way new TV show formats are developed: grab 2 or more succesful formats, mix 'm up, wrap 'm, and present 'm like it's the definitive hit show!

"Exactly the way new TV show formats are developed: grab 2 or more succesful formats, mix 'm up, wrap 'm, and present 'm like it's the definitive hit show!"

So we should be calling it C.S.I. (Christianity Sans Intellect)

So we should be calling it C.S.I. (Christianity Sans Intellect)

I have no problem with that.

Okay, the next installment of how real archaeology is taking the bible apart, verse by exaggerated verse.

The bible reports that Jehosophat, a contemporary of Ahab, (king of Israel) offered manpower and horses for the northern kingdom's wars against the Arameans. He strengthened his relationship with the northern kingdom by arranging a diplomatic marriage: the Israelite princess Athaliah, sister or daughter of King Ahab, married Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat [2 Kings 8:18 ]. The house of David in Jerusalem was now directly linked to (and apparently dominated by) the Israelite royalty of Samaria. In fact, we might suggest that this represented the north's takeover by marriage of Judah. Thus, in the ninth century BCE--nearly a century after the presumed time of David--we can finally point to the historical existence of a great united monarchy of Israel, stretching from Dan in the north to Beer-Sheba in the south with significant conquered territories in Syria and Transjordan. But this united monarchy--a real united monarchy--was ruled by the Omrides, not the Davidies, and its capital was Samaria, not Jerusalem.

Minimalist wrote:Okay, the next installment of how real archaeology is taking the bible apart, verse by exaggerated verse.

The bible reports that Jehosophat, a contemporary of Ahab, (king of Israel) offered manpower and horses for the northern kingdom's wars against the Arameans. He strengthened his relationship with the northern kingdom by arranging a diplomatic marriage: the Israelite princess Athaliah, sister or daughter of King Ahab, married Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat [2 Kings 8:18 ]. The house of David in Jerusalem was now directly linked to (and apparently dominated by) the Israelite royalty of Samaria. In fact, we might suggest that this represented the north's takeover by marriage of Judah. Thus, in the ninth century BCE--nearly a century after the presumed time of David--we can finally point to the historical existence of a great united monarchy of Israel, stretching from Dan in the north to Beer-Sheba in the south with significant conquered territories in Syria and Transjordan. But this united monarchy--a real united monarchy--was ruled by the Omrides, not the Davidies, and its capital was Samaria, not Jerusalem.

You got links to go with that, Bob?

No. I'm typing it out of the book.

"David and Solomon In search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of Western Tradition" Finklestein and Silberman. Copyright 2006

I got it from Amazon.com.


Arch keeps saying that archaeology has not proven the bible wrong and the only way to show him the error of his ways is to present the very latest archaeological research on the matter.

Moving on to one of the bible's biggest propaganda stories we come to the discussion of David v Goliath.


To begin with, I will quote from the freakin' bible itself...hard to believe, I know.

4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

5 And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.

6 And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders.

Now hold that thought while I review the purported time line. Around 1150 BC, Pharoah Ramesses III was able to defeat an invasion of Egypt by a group collectively known as the Sea People. This force had devastated most of the Eastern Mediterranean including the Hittites and Cyprus. Defeated by Ramesses III the principal group of the Sea People. known as the Peleset to the Egyptians landed in Southern Canaan and became known to history as the Philistines.

A century and a half later the bible claims that David pulled his great upset of Goliath.

However, as Finklestein points out, the bible story is an anachronism. It depicts Goliath dressed in chain mail, brass helmet and greaves.

Finklestein says:

Goliath's armor, as described in the bible, bears little resemblance to the military equipment of the early Philistines as archaeology has revealed it. Instead of wearing bronze helmets the Peleset shown on the walls of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III in Upper Eqypt wear distinctive feather-topped headdresses. Instead of being heavily armored and carrying a spear, javelin and sword, they use a single spear and do not wear the metal leg armor known as greaves. Yet the biblical description of Goliath's armor is not simply a fanciful creation; every single item has clear parallels to archaeologically attested Aegean weapons and armor from the Mycenean period to classical times. In all periods within this general time frame, once can find metal helmets, metal armor, and metal greaves. Yet, until the seventh century BC, these items were relatively rare in the Greek world. It is only with the appearance of the heavily armed Greek hoplites of the seventh through fifth centuries BC that standard equipment comes to resemble Goliath's. In fact, the standard hoplite's accouterments were identical to Goliath's, consisting of a metal helmet, plate armor, metal greaves, two spears, a sword and a large shield. And this suggests that the author of the biblical story8 of David and Goliath had an intimate knowledge of Greek hoplites of the late seventh century BC.

Moreover, the Greek historian Herodotus reports that Greek mercenaries from Asia Minor were serving the Egyptians in the reign of the Pharoah Psammetichus I who took over the Philistine coastal areas just at the time that the state of Judea was pulling itself together into something resembling a full-blown state. The clear analogy is that "David" is put into the role of the personification of Judah facing off with the newly restored Egyptian military might....which probably included Philistine vassals but almost certainly included Greek mercenaries which were the panzer divisions of their age.

All of which means, therefore, that the pious biblical scriptures are a concocted story pitting a 10th century David against a warrior of a type which did not exist for another 2 centuries.

Consider the bible description above with these images of Greek hoplites.





as opposed to the archaeologically discovered images of Philistine warriors such as this:

Note the distinctive headresses of the Philistine warriors in this image of the battle between Ramesses III and the Sea People. Contrast the headresses with the one shown above and then with the description of "Goliath's" .

Maybe they wore different hats in the navy.

Hats????


This is a hat.




THIS is a helmet!