Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Sodom and Gomorrah Discovered

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Yes - There are claims that the apostles considered the accounts to be factual. In fact, I find it hard to believe that they didn't. Which is why I have said that if the Genesis accounts were intended to be moral tales, a critical piece of information is missing.

    As far as I know, you are aware that majority opinion does not establish a matter as fact.
    Theology, doctrine and dogma are not a popularity contest. Nor does the doctrine, dogma or theology, nor your opinion establish anything as a matter of fact. The predominant theology, doctrine and dogma of the major churches does establish what is taught and believed by most Christians in the Roman Church and the Protestant churches. A dialogue nor debate can reasonable account for individual opinions.

    Majority opinion of most of Christianity is that the Holy Spirit does not confer on a person the capacity to stop sinning. That opinion is not only hokum, preventing anyone who believes it from accessing the power to stop sinning, it is so thoroughly in contravention of the gospel that the person believing it cannot exercise any gift of the Holy Spirit.
    Hokum, Bokum Maleokum has little meaning in this dialogue and we are getting way off topic.

    One question: Is this your opinion or do you subscribe to a particular theological world view or a church.

    And given that is working from a flawed base definition of scripture, the argument is invalid.
    This needs more explanation then an assertion.

    The only scriptural content that is declared to be inspired of God is prophecy.
    Ah . . . in who's version of Christianity. Actually, Biblical prophecy is most definitely a weak link, because of multiple possible interpretations.

    2 Peter 1:21 "No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them."
    This unfortunately does not work very well in history since there are many different interpretations of different prophecies. Unless of course you believe in speaking tongues, and then the prophecy could mean anything.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • This needs more explanation then an assertion.
      It was explained in part, with one of two passages that are used to "support" the precept that everything in the Bible is holy writ. There was no bare assertion.
      The second verse cited in "support" of the precept is: "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for ....."
      That interpretation is incorrect (though technically, the translation is accurate): "is" doesn't exist in the Koine, and "God inspired" isn't a verb, it's an adjective. A translation which more closely matches the statement of the Koine Greek below.

      10403012_796040603748859_4876092976671892741_n.jpg

      This unfortunately does not work very well in history since there are many different interpretations of different prophecies. Unless of course you believe in speaking tongues, and then the prophecy could mean anything.
      When it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues is not prophecy as such, though when the person who speaks in the tongue also interprets the outcome is much the same. Being a gift, it is of course made available subject to certain conditions - including that the gift will not be available to people adhering to a false gospel.
      Ah . . . in who's version of Christianity. Actually, Biblical prophecy is most definitely a weak link, because of multiple possible interpretations.
      The prophet can control what proceeds from his mouth. What happens to it after it enters someone's ear is not subject to the prophet's control.


      Theology, doctrine and dogma are not a popularity contest. Nor does the doctrine, dogma or theology, nor your opinion establish anything as a matter of fact.
      Asolutely, Positively, Indubitibly, Incontrovertibly, 100% correct. Two workmen attested as approved by God (or at least attested to accurately handle the word of truth), speaking or writing independently, are necessary to establish the veracity of prophecy. Either that, or one person and the direct action of the Holy Spirit. Even Jesus stated that his own testimony was not to be considered true if it did not receive backing from the Holy Spirit.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Just in case someone might mistake my meaning: The affirmation by the Holy Spirit is not a matter of "burning in the chest" or "warm fuzzies" or "falling flat on your face" etc and so forth. It is something external that the observer can see, hear, or touch for himself.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Just in case someone might mistake my meaning: The affirmation by the Holy Spirit is not a matter of "burning in the chest" or "warm fuzzies" or "falling flat on your face" etc and so forth. It is something external that the observer can see, hear, or touch for himself.
          Two problems (1) Pretty much off topic of what TimelessTheist proposed. TimelessTheist is arguing from a traditional Christian theist perspective that the miracles in the OT are justified as factual by the evidence. This is in line with GR Morton's attempts to justify geologic evidence for the flood. Traditional theism is dependent on justifying traditional theology, doctrine and dogma that the key events in the Pentateuch are in some way real, but not necessarily literal.

          (2) Your beliefs apparently do not match traditional Christian theism, therefore off topic. Your view toward 'prophesy' in the Bible too vague, anecdotal and subjective. Nice to start another thread someplace and I will be willing to discuss this.

          A question for another thread. What is 'something external that the observer can see, hear, or touch for himself concerning affirmation by the Holy Spirit.'
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-17-2014, 06:02 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by (OP)TimelessTheist
            http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...-Gomorrah.aspx

            Unless anyone can find a discrepancy, I'd say the case is pretty much settled. It's found in the same place as described in the Bible, and went through the exact same stuff as described in the Bible.
            That's the topic.
            The find gives us substantive archaeological evidence that Abraham and Lot lived during a given time period. The find also shows that the cities were destroyed in substantially the same manner as described by the Bible. Nothing in the archaeological evidence shows any divine influence on the event. Only prophecy concerning the future - stated before the event - shows that divine influence was involved.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              That's the topic.
              The find gives us substantive archaeological evidence that Abraham and Lot lived during a given time period. The find also shows that the cities were destroyed in substantially the same manner as described by the Bible. Nothing in the archaeological evidence shows any divine influence on the event. Only prophecy concerning the future - stated before the event - shows that divine influence was involved.
              The evidence shows that unnamed towns and/or cities were destroyed in a similar manner as described in the Bile. It is possible that these towns and/or cities were destroyed by natural processes. There is not substantive archeological evidence for the existence of Abraham and Lot.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • There is a Nova program and article from PBS that does provide a good summary about what the evidence for Israel, Abraham, Moses and the Exodus that is presently available, which is not much. This interview is very revealing.

                Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html



                Proving the Bible

                NOVA: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?

                William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

                But perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. I have always thought that if we resurrected someone from the past, one of the biblical writers, they would be amused, because for them it would have made no difference. I think they would have said, faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them.

                The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.

                Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.

                We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

                The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Next post I will provide more from the article.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-17-2014, 11:28 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html



                  Even if archeology can't prove events of the Bible, can it enhance our understanding of the Bible?

                  Archeology is almost the only way that we have for reconstructing a real-life context for the world out of which the Bible came, and that does bring understanding. When you think of how little we knew about the biblical world even 100 years ago and what we know today, it's astonishing.

                  The faith of Abraham

                  According to the Bible, the first person to form a covenant with God is Abraham. He is the great patriarch. Is there archeological evidence for Abraham?

                  One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

                  "It disturbs some people that, for the very early periods, we archeologists haven't much to say."

                  Are we to become unbelievers if we can't prove that Abraham ever lived? What is the story about? It's a story about freedom and faith and risk. Does it matter exactly how Abraham and his clan left, and when they arrived in Canaan, or where they settled? What really matters is that Abraham is seen later by Jews and Christians as the father of the faithful.

                  Abraham moves out on faith to a land he has never seen. You have to think of how perilous the journey would have been had it really taken place. We are talking about a journey of several hundred miles around the fringes of the desert. So it's an astonishing story. Is it true? It is profoundly true, but it's not the kind of truth that archeology can directly illuminate.

                  Why is it difficult for archeologists to find support for the accounts of the patriarchs?

                  It disturbs some people that, for the very early periods such as the so-called patriarchal period, we archeologists haven't much to say. The later we come in time, the firmer the ground we stand on—we have better sources. We have more written sources. We have more contemporary eyewitness sources.

                  For the earlier periods, we don't have any texts. Abraham might have lived around 1800 B.C.E. This is the dawn of written history or prehistory, when the archeological evidence can't easily be correlated with any external evidence, textual evidence—even if we did have it.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html



                    Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?

                    No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.


                    Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?

                    It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

                    So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.

                    Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?

                    We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

                    Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.

                    The origins of Israel

                    What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

                    The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

                    So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

                    So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

                    "It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences."

                    If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?

                    Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

                    Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?

                    Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence.

                    Now, why these people were willing to take such a risk, colonizing the hill country frontier, is very difficult to know. I think there were social and economic compulsions, but I would be the first to say I think it was probably also a new religious vision.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    This interview is a great overview of the evidence available that supports my argument. It will be broken up in parts
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-17-2014, 11:55 AM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The evidence shows that unnamed towns and/or cities were destroyed in a similar manner as described in the Bile. It is possible that these towns and/or cities were destroyed by natural processes. There is not substantive archeological evidence for the existence of Abraham and Lot.
                      The Bible refers specifically to two towns in a specific locality by specific means within a specific time-frame. Archaeological investigation shows that two towns in that same locality were destroyed in the fashion described within the specified time-frame.
                      The Bible further records that the cities were subjected to a military attack some years before their destruction - archaeological records show that such an attack did occur roughly 25 years before their destruction. There is no reasonable cause for doubt that the Bible chronicles, within reasonable limits of accuracy, the events in that region at the time spoken of.
                      With that, acceptable evidence of Abraham's presence in the area at the time is established. After 3000+ years, demanding stronger evidence than is available from the archaeological sites is insincere. The evidence is good enough to satisfy archaeologists that these towns are those identified by the Bible, and there is nothing genuine about a claim that the people associated with those towns is false.
                      The person who rejects it would also reject evidence as certain as finding written material on the site and dating to that time-frame referring to Abraham the henotheist and Lot the doom-sayer. (No doubt the justification would be something like "many people went by those names."
                      Last edited by tabibito; 07-17-2014, 11:50 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html



                        Was this an egalitarian movement?

                        Some have argued that early Israel was an egalitarian society, that there was no social stratification. I'm not sure any society was ever really egalitarian, but there is a sort of egalitarianism in the Hebrew Bible: "Every man under his own fig tree, equal in the eyes of Yahweh." It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences, no monumental architecture of any kind. These are farming villages in which every household is independent. I think there is a kind of primitive democracy in early Israel, which is enshrined in the vision of the good life in the Hebrew Bible.

                        And these settlements grow, right?

                        Yes. These settlements are very different from the urban centers of the earlier 13th century. Something new is in the air, and I think this explains why other people join this movement. These villages will develop into the towns and the cities of the later state of Israel.

                        A United Monarchy

                        When did Israel become a state?

                        According to the biblical scheme of events, there was a United Monarchy for about a hundred years in the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. Then a civil war brought about the division of the country into Israel, the northern kingdom, and Judah, the southern kingdom. Now, some skeptics today have argued that there was no such thing as a United Monarchy. In short, there was no David.

                        However, in 1993 an inscription was found at Tel Dan. It mentions a dynasty of David. And on the Mesha stone found in the last century in Moab there is also a probable reference to David. So there is textual evidence outside the Bible for these kings of the United Monarchy, at least David.


                        Most of us mainstream archeologists also have now dated a series of monumental royal constructions to the 10th century—the famous gates at Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer. And we have in the Bible, in First Kings 9:15-17, the famous description of Solomon's construction of gates of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. So I would argue for a 10th-century United Monarchy.

                        The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?

                        The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.

                        Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.



                        Does archeology in Jerusalem itself reveal anything about the Kingdom of David and Solomon?

                        We haven't had much of an opportunity to excavate in Jerusalem. It's a living city, not an archeological site. But we have a growing collection of evidence—monumental buildings that most of us would date to the 10th century, including the new so-called Palace of David. Having seen it with the excavator, it is certainly monumental. Whether it's a palace or an administrative center or a combination of both or a kind of citadel remains to be seen.

                        [Hear the excavator herself, Eilat Mazar, describe the Palace of David.]

                        The Israelites' many gods

                        The Bible would have us think that all Israelites embraced monotheism relatively early, from Moses's time on. Is that contrary to what archeology has found?

                        The portrait of Israelite religion in the Hebrew Bible is the ideal, the ideal in the minds of those few who wrote the Bible—the elites, the Yahwists, the monotheists. But it's not the ideal for most people. And archeology deals with the ordinary, forgotten folk of ancient Israel who have no voice in the Bible. There is a wonderful phrase in Daniel Chapter 12: "For all those who sleep in the dust." Archeology brings them to light and allows them to speak. And most of them were not orthodox believers.

                        However, we should have guessed already that polytheism was the norm and not monotheism from the biblical denunciations of it. It was real and a threat as far as those who wrote the Bible were concerned. And today archeology has illuminated what we could call "folk religion" in an astonishing manner.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • I thought you said you wanted to keep this thread on topic.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html



                            One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.

                            In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."

                            Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair.

                            The Israelite prophets and reformers denounce the Mother Goddess and all the other gods and goddesses of Canaan. But I think Asherah was widely venerated in ancient Israel. If you look at Second Kings 23, which describes the reforms of King Josiah in the late 7th century, he talks about purging the Temple of all the cult paraphernalia of Asherah. So the so-called folk religion even penetrated the Temple in Jerusalem.

                            Is there other evidence linking Asherah to Yahweh?

                            In the 1970s, Israeli archeologists digging in Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai found a little desert fort of the same period, and lo and behold, we have "Yahweh and Asherah" all over the place in the Hebrew inscriptions.

                            Are there any images of Asherah?

                            For a hundred years now we have known of little terracotta female figurines. They show a nude female; the sexual organs are not represented but the breasts are. They are found in tombs, they are found in households, they are found everywhere. There are thousands of them. They date all the way from the 10th century to the early 6th century.

                            They have long been connected with one goddess or another, but many scholars are still hesitant to come to a conclusion. I think they are representations of Asherah, so I call them Asherah figurines.

                            There aren't such representations of Yahweh, are there?

                            No. Now, why is it that you could model the female deity but not the male deity? Well, I think the First and Second Commandments by now were taken pretty seriously. You just don't portray Yahweh, the male deity, but the Mother Goddess is okay. But his consort is probably a lesser deity.

                            We found molds for making Asherah figurines, mass-producing them, in village shrines. So probably almost everybody had one of these figurines, and they surely have something to do with fertility. They were no doubt used to pray for conceiving a child and bearing the child safely and nursing it. It's interesting to me that the Israelite and Judean ones are rather more modest than the Canaanite ones, which are right in your face. The Israelite and Judean ones mostly show a nursing mother.

                            This has been something of a lightning rod, has it not?

                            This is awkward for some people, the notion that Israelite religion was not exclusively monotheistic. But we know now that it wasn't. Monotheism was a late development. Not until the Babylonian Exile and beyond does Israelite and Judean religion—Judaism—become monotheistic.

                            The improbable rise of Judaism

                            Does archeology have evidence of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians?

                            When it comes to destructions that might be illuminated by archeology, none would be more important than the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 B.C.E. by the Babylonians. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of direct archeological evidence because we have never been able to excavate large areas in Jerusalem. The late Israeli archeologist Yigal Shiloh found a huge accumulation of debris on the east side of the Temple Mount, cascaded down the hill. So there is some evidence, not yet well-published. Of course, the Temple Mount has never been excavated and never will be.

                            That doesn't mean that that the destruction didn't take place and that it wasn't a watershed event. One would have thought at that time that it was the end of the people of Israel—with elites carried away into captivity and ordinary people impoverished. It would have seemed to have been the end, but it was rather the beginning. Because it was in exile, precisely, that those who wrote the Bible looked back, collected the archives they had, rethought it all, reformulated it, and out of that intellectual reconstruction comes early Judaism.

                            It seems astonishing that after this defeat the Israelites could stay faithful to their god.

                            In every age of disbelief, one is inclined to think that God is dead. And surely those who survived the fall of Jerusalem must have thought so. After all, how could God allow his Temple, his house—the visible sign of his presence amongst his people—to be destroyed? What did we do wrong? It's out of this that comes the reflection that polytheism was our downfall. There is, after all, only one God. And this radical belief in a single God who governs history becomes the heart of Judaism.

                            [Learn more about the Foundation of Judaism in this interview with Shaye Cohen.]

                            Editor's note: William Dever, like other academic scholars, uses the term B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) instead of B.C. (Before Christ).

                            This feature originally appeared on the site for the NOVA program "The Bible's Buried Secrets". See the original site for more related features.


                            William DeverWilliam Dever has been active in the field of biblical archeology since 1955. Interview of William Dever conducted in Jerusalem in July 2007 by Gary Glassman, producer, writer, and director of "The Bible's Buried Secrets," and edited by Susan K. Lewis, senior editor of NOVA Online.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • The Bible would have us think that all Israelites embraced monotheism relatively early, from Moses's time on. Is that contrary to what archeology has found?
                              The Bible would have us believe that the Israelites embraced henotheism from the time of Moses, and that select Ancestors of the Israelites embraced henotheism from the time of Abraham. The Bible never makes the claim that Israel was monotheistic. There are periods where the Bible records long periods of a strong presence of polytheism. Of course, given the fact that the Hebrew religious practice had little in the way of artifacts, no evidence of YHVH worship can be expected. There is good cause to believe that "polytheism was the norm" is an exaggerated claim - on the basis of archaeological finds: "there was a strong polytheistic presence" and no more than that can rightly be claimed.

                              But at least the works you cite do acknowledge that YHVH worship was dominant in post exilic Israel.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 07-17-2014, 12:09 PM.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                The Bible refers specifically to two towns in a specific locality by specific means within a specific time-frame. Archaeological investigation shows that two towns in that same locality were destroyed in the fashion described within the specified time-frame.

                                The Bible further records that the cities were subjected to a military attack some years before their destruction - archaeological records show that such an attack did occur roughly 25 years before their destruction. There is no reasonable cause for doubt that the Bible chronicles, within reasonable limits of accuracy, the events in that region at the time spoken of.
                                I accept that the time frame, and that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah are based on real events, but the evidence does not go as far as you claim.

                                With that, acceptable evidence of Abraham's presence in the area at the time is established. After 3000+ years, demanding stronger evidence than is available from the archaeological sites is insincere. The evidence is good enough to satisfy archaeologists that these towns are those identified by the Bible, and there is nothing genuine about a claim that the people associated with those towns is false.
                                Now your going to far extrapolating the evidence to where no basis for a conclusion. The interview I have posted by Dever more then confirms my argument that the Pentateuch is set in history compiled and redacted at a later date, and not history.

                                The person who rejects it would also reject evidence as certain as finding written material on the site and dating to that time-frame referring to Abraham the henotheist and Lot the doom-sayer. (No doubt the justification would be something like "many people went by those names."
                                Nothing is available dating the existence of Abraham and Lot to that time. See interview posted.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
                                0 responses
                                9 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 09-07-2023, 02:41 PM
                                30 responses
                                134 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X