Archaeologica.org

Babylon occupies the world stage for a relatively short period of time but interacted so significantly with Assyria, Phoenicia, Judea, Persia and Egypt that they provide a very useful time reference.

For being a major player for less than a century they certainly did make an impact.

Forum Monk wrote:

seeker wrote:Unfortunately there are too many archaeologists still holding up chronologies in Egypt, Greece etc because of their reluctance to give up on the biblical template

Can you clarify this statement?
As I see it, the Egyptian and Babylonian chronologies have been problematic for those who tend to hold to an Ussherian view of biblical chronolgy.

Pretty much any timeline that relies on real evidence conflicts with the Ussherian view.

The problemis that for hundreds of years biblical stories were used for dating events in Egypt, resulting in dates much earlier than they should have been. In fact it was only things like the Assyrian Kings List and other bits of evidence that kept some semblance of reality in archaeology but those bits of evidence weren't even translated until the mid-ninteenth century.

Peter James, in his book Centuries of Darkness, pointed out a number of problems throughout the archaeoligical world caused by the early reliance on biblical dating to establish chronologies in other regions, including Egypt

Then you get people like David Rohl who think that bible chronology is so important that he will re-draw Egypt by 3 centuries to make it fit. It doesn't work.

Minimalist wrote:

Of course that has implications for dating NT books doesn't it

Amen to that!

Greece was a part of the Persian Empire too.

Of course the Greeks see it as Persia being part of the Hellenistic Empire. In fact, they would probably still be willing to kill each other over that distinction!

Granted the Greeks were never willing partners in the Persian Empire.

When it comes to Hellenism the definitions are pretty loose. The Sadducees were known for rejecting the 'oral Torah' which is pretty odd when you consider that there was probably very little written Torah at the beginning of their existence. Hellenism for the Sadduces really meant adoption of Greek ideas about commerce, the accumulation of wealth (Sadducees tended to be wealthy), relaxed dietary conventions and relaxed purity conventions.

"Greece" can be a somewhat amorphous term. There were many "Greek" city states in Asia Minor set up as colonies by Greeks from the mother country and these were incorporated into the Persian Empire and their navies made up the "Persian" fleet at Artemisium and Salamis, along with a few Phonecians who were also drafted.

When Alexander turned the tables and overran Persia he set in place a Hellenistic empire which survived under the Seleucids for several centuries. So, I'd say there was definitely a lot of cultural cross-pollination going on there.

I do think we have to keep in mind that the Bible was never written to be a history or science reference book.
In fact, as a religious book, it is a narrowly focused, forward looking, document.
The OT pointing the descendants of Abraham to the coming of the Messiah, and the NT pointing Christians the “Kingdom of God” or the “Second Coming.” of that Messiah.
Any historical references are strictly to enhance those purposes.
I do think those references mesh often enough with non-Biblical histories to keep the general concept on track.

kbs2244 wrote:I do think we have to keep in mind that the Bible was never written to be a history or science reference book.
In fact, as a religious book, it is a narrowly focused, forward looking, document.
The OT pointing the descendants of Abraham to the coming of the Messiah, and the NT pointing Christians the “Kingdom of God” or the “Second Coming.” of that Messiah.
Any historical references are strictly to enhance those purposes.
I do think those references mesh often enough with non-Biblical histories to keep the general concept on track.

I think that is reasonable. The problem is that the biblical history doesn't mesh with non-biblical histories in a reliable enough way to base our understanding of history on it. The great paradigm in the study of ancient history is that the bible offered a reliable chronology, that has been proven wrong.

The bible is certainly writtten to promote a religio-political point of view. As such it has a tendency to distort history to further the points of view it espouses, using stories about historical events rather than trying to actually reconstruct real events. For that reason archaeologists should never have been using the bible as any sort of primary source for understanding history.

seeker wrote:The problem is that the biblical history doesn't mesh with non-biblical histories in a reliable enough way to base our understanding of history on it. The great paradigm in the study of ancient history is that the bible offered a reliable chronology, that has been proven wrong.

There are precious few historical works as old as the bible, no matter what age you want to ascribe to it. Most people also understand that the bible has historical texts, allegorical texts, religious texts, etc. As KB says it was first and formost a collection of books with religious purpose. Very few will look at the first 8 chapters of Genesis, for example as an exposition of profane history.

As for being proven wrong. Obviously the Ussharian (adj?) interpretation is challenged prior to the kingdom period. But many scholars have not sat back and said well Ussher solved it, no point in studying anymore. Biblical scholarship and interpretation have continued in the light of recent archaeological discoveries.

For that reason archaeologists should never have been using the bible as any sort of primary source for understanding history.

Again I say. There were precious few historical texts and at the time very few people who were studying archaeology were doubting the historicity of the texts. It is pointless to say they never should have relied upon the bible, imo.

Even ancient "historical texts" would not pass muster as history by today's standards.

You have, in a nutshell, Monk, defined the difference between the "centrist" and "minimalist" positions on the historical relevancy of the text. To quote Amihai Mazar:

......the working hypothesis of the view that I represent is that information in the Deuteronomistic History and other biblical texts may have historical value, in spite of the distortions, exaggerations, theological disposition, and literary creativity of the biblical authors and editors.

"The Quest for the Historical Israel" page 31. Co-Authored with I. Finkelstein.

That makes me a "centrist," too. Of course, it also forces us into the position of having to separate the wheat from the chaff. The only way I can see to do that is by cross-referencing the other, more literate cultures in the area for textual clues and seeing what artifacts archaeology digs up.

Minimalist wrote:Even ancient "historical texts" would not pass muster as history by today's standards.

You have, in a nutshell, Monk, defined the difference between the "centrist" and "minimalist" positions on the historical relevancy of the text. To quote Amihai Mazar:

......the working hypothesis of the view that I represent is that information in the Deuteronomistic History and other biblical texts may have historical value, in spite of the distortions, exaggerations, theological disposition, and literary creativity of the biblical authors and editors.

"The Quest for the Historical Israel" page 31. Co-Authored with I. Finkelstein.

That makes me a "centrist," too. Of course, it also forces us into the position of having to separate the wheat from the chaff. The only way I can see to do that is by cross-referencing the other, more literate cultures in the area for textual clues and seeing what artifacts archaeology digs up.

Astonishingly, I agree with everything you have said. (except your centralism )

Historical muster by today's standards leaves a lot be desired in my opinion. One thing to cite the cold hard facts of history, quite another to understand the mindsets and motivations that drove history through its course.

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."

There is a major problem though with even the centrist view. As Minimalist noted "you have to separate the wheat from the chaff" and with the bible's uncertain dating and questionable representations of history that is problematic. At least with Herodotus' Histories we have a set of events we can have confidence in. By contrast the bible is more like a fiction period piece.

I think anyone trying to build a history of events in the Levant is more likely to be misled by the bible.

Minimalist wrote: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.

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.

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