Archaeologica.org

archaeologist wrote:
i live in another country

so what evidence i leave behind would be minimal to indicate that i was a foreigner with a christian belief system.

I would have to say I agree with Arch on this particular item when it comes to obtaining a difinitive answer.

It's along the lines of, say, looking in someone's kitchen pantry and trying to make a determination of an individuals ethnicity. It just can't be done.

[quote="Minimalist"]Damn. You're right. Who'd a thunk it!

We have to teach Leona how to quote.[/quote]

It does have those quotey things around it. I just don't know how to do the fancy stuff you do.

It's probably one of mankind's least important accomplishments. I wouldn't worry about it.

I would have to say I agree with Arch on this particular item

wow!! someone actually agreed with a point i made...i don't know what to do know...i am lost...

It stands to reason that if one wants to find proof of the existence of a group of people in the past, they must have an idea of what to look for and not assume that the evidence is going to be the same at the origin as it is in the middle or end of that group's existence.

since israel started out as a small family plus servants and a few others, it stands to reason that it would take a long time to develope any national identity. then given the circumstances they were under as they grew in number plus the tasks they had to do before they settled down and became a stable society. it is idealistic to go into an excavation and expect to find israelite cast offs.

They found full evidence of the Israelites coalescing in the hill country of Palestine, centuries after the Hyksos expulsion.

Oh, I forgot....you only read books by bible thumpers or their ilk.

Solid article, Doc, and welcome to the fray. I'm sure our resident bible-thumper will be around as soon as the sun comes up in Korea to denounce you for being a godless commie.

I've been debating which of the minimalist school of authors to start with and based on this, perhaps I'll start with Whitelam. Having read through Dever's empassioned (and LONG) denunciation of the Copenhagen School in "What Did The Bible Writers Know ......" I always thought that Dever 'protested too much.' He also can work himself up in to a lather about Finkelstein's findings. In fact, Dever can work himself up about virtually anything! Still, he makes it clear that he has no basic disagreement with Finkelstein's findings that Israel arose in the Eastern Hill Country around 1200 BC. As you note above, he quibbles about pottery and farming techniques.

Finkelstein is much more reserved in his criticism of the 'revisionists.' Mainly using the Tel Dan stele as a refutation of them. The impression that Tel Dan is accepted as 'proof' of the House of David (but, not the bible story which ascribes the killing of the two kings to a rebel not Hazael) is something which seems to have general acceptance among archaeologists. I had only seen one article which questioned the wording of the stele and he was promptly shouted down, much as anyone who questions the dating of the sphinx is shouted down by the Egyptology Club.

It might be interesting to see what the true rebels have to say about Tel Dan.

sweet jesus christ in the foothills

do i detect an actual, living, breathing mind

entering the proscenium of this hyar

overblown nativity scene?


feel very faint

breathing shallow

heart racing

f-ck the nitroglycerin ............. i too

must get off couch................find 20 yr. single malt

welcome, doc

john

I'm sure our resident bible-thumper will be around as soon as the sun comes up in Korea to denounce you for being a godless commie

1. don't confuse me with bush and his gang of thugs, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when it disagrees with mine. (of course then when it does they would be wrong--ha. ha)

Hendel cites Hoffmeier's concession that there exists no direct archaeological or historical evidence to support it

2. yes that is true and i think Hoffmeier states that in his book, Israel in Egypt. yet i have proposed a theory that would account for such lack in direct evidence. again Kenneth Kitchen is correct in saying, "absence of evidence does not mean absence of existence" (done by memory)

so many factors must be taken into account before people leap to conclusions and assume a false position.

Finkelstein's mistake is that he limits himself to the direct evidence of the cities he and others have worked on and then, according to the quotes that have been presented here, does not take into account that the israelites had to enter palestine, conquer the existing people, clean up the mess and thensettle down before they could start producing their own materials that would lend support toa national identity.

thus it is not hard to see the error in finkelstein's ways as he proclaims that the evidence doesn't support the fact. the evidence only supports a stationary existence which leads finkelstein down the wrong road. assumption based upon dismissal of facts that account for previous existence and activity is just misleading and wrong.

Whitelam devotes much of his work to demonstrating that biblical scholarship and archaeology operated on the assumption that the texts preserved an accurate history, an assumption driven more by religious and political bias than actual evidence.

3. God does not lie. If he lied in the Old Testament then we could not rely on the New and our salvation and hope would be in jeopardy. Plus we could dismiss His and Christs claim without fear of reprisal. thus the Bible has to be true in all parts or it is worthless.

4. lately, there has been a trend to mine the ancient myths of many cultures to find some nuggets of truth and history. the problem comes in biblical arch. when these same professionals dismiss an ancient source because it has religious ties.

that doesn't just apply to the bible but also to the jewish histories as well. what this does is provide an uneven palying field. while the internal histories of allother ancient civilizations are taken seriously, it is the jewish and the Bible that get rendered to the dump heap and disqualified because it presents evidence no one wants to consider.

we know that the ancient texts are not complete and some do not even present honestly their past, yet they are given more credibility (except for the ones that corroborate the Biblical accounts) than any whose authorship comes fromthe jewish nation (the Bible included)

thus it is easy to see where people error as they rely on incomplete data to raw their own conclusions and strengthen their won beliefs.

Probably because the bible is so obviously plagiarized from earlier sources. Why go to the copy when the originals are now available?

don't confuse me with bush and his gang of thugs

It's an easy mistake to make!

"absence of evidence does not mean absence of existence"

You continually misapply (and now misquote!) this maxim.

First of all, it is 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'

Secondly, you cling it stubbornly even though it is not at all applicalbe to the origins of your precious Israelites.

Evidence has been found. Such evidence does not substantiate your fairy tales. That does not mean there is an absence of evidence....it means that your fairy tales are bullshit.

You continually misapply (and now misquote!) this maxim.

thank you ...yes i do have problems with that statement when i try to quote it.

Evidence has been found. Such evidence does not substantiate your fairy tales.

i disagree. evidence has been found to prove their existence became stationary but not to dismiss the biblical account.

so you agree that the israelites built heliopolis then

as it says in Exodus 1:11

i disagree. evidence has been found to prove their existence became stationary but not to dismiss the biblical account.

So NOW you propose that "absence of evidence = proof of existence?"

I'd thought you already reached rock-bottom on the intellectual scale with your continued defense of the Noah myth but you have just surpassed yourself.