Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

seeker · Post by **seeker** » Mon May 12, 2008 11:02 am

Pretty much any relic from that region has to be looked at skeptically because of the religious hysteria surrounding the region. Generally if there isn't some clear indication of the relic's date it shouldn't be believed.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Mon May 12, 2008 11:20 am

Sadly, Min and seeker you are both correct.
There is both a profit and belief motive for fakes from this area.
That makes any find suspect, even if it is real

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:26 pm

Ishtar wrote:I'm not saying they all are, but there seems to be a fair few of them: In the red light district, Rahab, Jezebel, Bathsheba, the Whore of Babylon, the Queen of Sheba, Mary Magdelene. In the nunnery, Mary and ... er ... that's it! Hmmm ....

Neither Bathseba and Queen of Sheba belong on the list but they help you make your point, I guess. There are plenty of other normal women doing normal, socially repressed women things, and a few heroines as well.

It was and continues to be a patriarchy, pretty much world-wide.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:28 pm

The Jezebel seal was one of those "right time, right place, therefore..." leaps of faith. Sadly, there is not even any evidence for "right time, right place". I doubt this will ever be proven.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:59 pm

Forum Monk wrote:
Neither Bathseba and Queen of Sheba belong on the list but they help you make your point, I guess. There are plenty of other normal women doing normal, socially repressed women things, and a few heroines as well.

It was and continues to be a patriarchy, pretty much world-wide.

Yes, I agree, FM, I was a bit loose with my loose women definition there.

But with Bathsheba, there was a bit of breaking Commandment number 3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathsheba

The story of David's seduction of Bathsheba, told in II Samuel 11: et seq., is omitted in Chronicles. The king, while walking on the roof of his house, saw Bathsheba, who was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, taking a bath. He immediately desired her. David then committed adultery with her and she conceived.

In an effort to cover up his sin, David summoned Uriah from the army (with whom he was on campaign) in the hopes that Uriah would sleep with Bathsheba, and thus the child could be passed off as his. However, Uriah was unwilling to violate the ancient kingdom rule applying to warriors in active service (see Robertson Smith, "Religion of the Semites," pp. 455, 488). Rather than go home to his own bed, he preferred to remain with the palace troops. ..

Quite an interesting story, I think.

Also, although the Queen of Sheba does not sleep with the much-married Solomon in the OT, she apparently does in the Ethiopian literature, where she bears his son.

This is interesting from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Sheba

Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai placed the Semitic Sheba in Southern Arabia in geographic proximity to the location of the tribes descended from their ancestor, Joktan. In addition to Sheba, Hazarmaveth and Ophir were identified. Semitic Havilah was located in Eastern Africa, modern day Ethiopia. Semitic Havilah (Beresh't 10:29) is to be distinguished from Cushite Havilah (Beresh't 10:7), the descendant of Cush, descendant of Ham; both locations for Havilah are thought by these scholars to have been located in present day Ethiopia. [1]

The multiple references to Havilah may indicate historical Semitic migration from the southern Arabian peninsula to the African continent. An alternative account would place the origins of the Semites and the ancient Israelites in Ethiopia. The ancient Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote that “many, again, say that they [the Israelites] were a race of Ethiopian origin” (Histories (Tacitus), Book 5, Paragraphs 2 & 3). [2] Thus, the Queen of Sheba would rightly be placed as a descendant of the Semitic Sheba people located in southern Arabia, but with more than likely origins from Ethiopia.

I find the stories of both these women fascinating. And is it just coincidence that both names end with Sheba?

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 12, 2008 3:37 pm

kbs2244 wrote:Sadly, Min and seeker you are both correct.
There is both a profit and belief motive for fakes from this area.
That makes any find suspect, even if it is real

And it is not a new market. That sort of cottage industry relic copying service has been around since the 4th century AD it seems.

The early Crusaders brought back enough pieces of the "true cross" to build a good sized home.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 12, 2008 3:42 pm

And is it just coincidence that both names end with Sheba?

Probably not.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Mon May 12, 2008 6:23 pm

Well, two things here:

First, I think “Sheba” simply means “black”
So. Both the Queen and Solomon’s conquest may have be named for their color.
The color, or racial, distinction does not seem to be as hard in those days as it is now.

In Solomon’s case there is no mention that she was Jewish. In fact there is a point made that her husband was not.
And Solomon never showed any reluctance to go beyond his tribal limits.
And as a wise man, he would not be above hireling a good general of whatever nationality.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 12, 2008 8:25 pm

It's a bit more complicated than that....of course!

Sheba = "seven" or "an oath" n pr m
son of Joktan and a descendant of Seth
son of Raamah, grandson of Cush, and a descendant of Ham
son of Jokshan, the son of Abraham by Keturah n pr loc
a nation in southern Arabia

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Mon May 12, 2008 10:13 pm

SEVEN!

Oh no ...

sorry, wrong forum.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Tue May 13, 2008 9:20 am

I will not point out that it would be a Black Seven.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Tue May 13, 2008 9:32 am

Right ....I'm glad you didn't point that out.

seeker · Post by **seeker** » Tue May 13, 2008 9:34 am

kbs2244 wrote:I will not point out that it would be a Black Seven.

Thanks for not pointing that out kb.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue May 13, 2008 1:57 pm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 919430.ece

Now German researchers claim to have found the remains of the palace of the Queen of Sheba — and an altar that may have held the Ark.

The discovery, announced by the University of Hamburg, has stirred sceptical rumblings from the archaelogical community. The location of the Ark, indeed its existence, has been a source of controversy for centuries.

Regarded as the most precious treasure of ancient Judaism, it is at the heart of a debate about whether archaeology should chronicle the rise and fall of civilisations or explore the boundaries between myth and ancient history.

Posted in Arch. News. But I thought we knew this a long time ago.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 13, 2008 2:20 pm

From Wiki on the Kebra Nagast....

According to the Colophon attached to most of the existing copies, the Kebra Nagast originally was written in Coptic, then translated into Arabic in the Year of Mercy 409 (dated to AD 1225)[8] by a team of Ethiopian clerics during the office of Abuna Abba Giyorgis, and finally into Ge'ez at the command of governor Ya'ibika Igzi'. Based on the testimony of this Collophon, "Conti Rossini, Littmann, and Cerulli, inter alios, have marked off the period 1314 to 1321-1322 for the composition of the book."[9]

Careful study of the text has revealed traces of Arabic, possibly pointing to an Arabic vorlage, but no clear evidence of a previous Coptic version. Many scholars doubt that a Coptic version ever existed, and that the history of the text goes back no further than the Arabic vorlage.[10] On the other hand, the numerous quotations in the text from the Bible were not translated from this hypothetical Arabic vorlage, but were copied from the Ethiopian translation of the Bible, either directly or from memory, and in their use and interpretation shows the influence of patristic sources such as Gregory of Nyssa.[11]

Hubbard details the many sources that the compiler of the Kebra Nagast drew on in creating this work. They include not only both Testaments of the Bible (although heavier use is made of the Old Testament than the New), but he detects evidence of Rabbinical sources, influence from apocryphal works (especially the Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, and such Syriac works as the Book of the Cave of Treasures, and its derivatives the Book of Adam and Eve and the Book of the Bee.[12]