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

What was Judah like in Iron Age I and II

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

  • What was Judah like in Iron Age I and II

    In the most recent Biblical Archaeological Review there is an interesting artic 'Ancient Israel Through a Social Scientific Lens' by Yogel Levin. There are no recent discoveries revealed in this article. It reviews the history of archeological investigations and divides them into periods of types of investigation and scholarship beginning ~1865 with 19th century archaeology and scholarship. In this article he reviews the book The Archaeology of the Israelite Society in Iron Age II by Avraham Faust and other works by Faust, which he considers the beginning of a new stage in Biblical Archaeology scholarship. This book is a sequel to the Israel's Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion, and Resistance, dealing with Iron Age I. His works outline all the previous research and studies, and then analyzes the typical homes and Judahite city. He also wrote; Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaelogy of Desolation.The article may viewed at if you are a member at:
    Source: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine/



    Ancient Israel through a Social Scientific Lens by Yigal Levin

    Archaeology has come a long way since 19th-century explorers first mapped Biblical sites. Two recent volumes highlight the value of a new interdisciplinary approach as archaeologist Avraham Faust explores Israelite and Judahite society and the extent of the Babylonian destruction.

    © Copyright Original Source



    If you do not have a subscription to the magazine or the online version, get one. The books are too pricy for me. I will cite some quotations from the article from the article for discussion in the next posts. The news is not good for Biblical Maximalists. On the other hand his work did confirm and relate to descriptions of life in the Old Testament.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-25-2014, 02:35 PM.
    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.

  • #2
    Some of the interesting conclusions of Avraham Faust research are:

    In general Hebrew culture shared attributes with other surrounding cultures, but over time began to develop distinctive cultural traits.

    The article asserts that Faust's approach is mainly archeological, but some critics claim Faust gives too much credit to Biblical texts. My view is yes he gives credit to Biblical texts, but does show inaccuracies and 'myths' also. He more describes the OT as ancient literature in the context of history and not a historical record.

    (I) The design of the 'four-room house' characteristic in the town and cities of Israel and Judah beginning in the First Iron Age is considered a distinct by Faust a distinctive characteristic Israelite culture up to as late as the 6th century when they faded fro use. Not all scholars agree, but Faust's conclusion claim the design is related to the egalitarian ethos of Israelite culture of the time. Beginning in the 9th century they began to make family tombs with the same design.

    (II) Faust concludes that the distinct lack of temples, Israelite nor Judahite towns in the Iron Age II is due to the informal (egalitarian ethos?) worship at open air alters. He cites some OT texts to support this.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-21-2014, 08:24 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


    • #3
      Just a side note, I highly recommend the friends subscribe to the Biblical Archeological Review. It is an excellent academic publication.

      The concluding paragraphs of the article lead to describe the context of Faust's books. I hope to read them through a library in the future. It is unlikely that they will be available on the net anytime soon.

      Source: Ancient Israel Through a Social Scientific Lens by Yigal Levin - Biblical Archaeological Review



      In conclusion, Faust charges some scholars with "inventing" a continuity of settlement between the end of the Iron Age (i.e., the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah) and the Persian and Hellenistic periods in order to show that the society of Babylonian and Persian-period Judah was capable of producing many texts of the Bible, which they date to this period. In Faust's opinion, this this is simply impossible: Society of Judah was too depleted and poor to have supported such a huge literary project. Bible scholars, he concludes, will have to take the reality that archeologists present into account when developing their theories of how the Bible was produced.

      Much of what Faust writes is controversial, and he, too, has an agenda - especially in The Archeology of Desolation, in which he explicitly takes his opponents to task for using the archaeological data selectively in accordance with their preconceived views. But as long as he admits his own preconceived agenda openly, as he does, this is legit. In both books, Faust takes the archaeological evidence and uses it to present his view of life in Israel and Judah in the periods of the monarchy. Others will undoubtedly argue a different interpretation. As long as this is done in a way that is collegial and based on facts, this is actually the way scholarship advances.

      © Copyright Original Source



      I believe Faust presents a firm archeological foundation for what I have proposed in other threads and dialogues. The Pentateuch and other books of the OT like the Psalms were first compiled from none Hebrew sources, and edited and added to later with other Hebrew writings to make up the OT and other related writings.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-21-2014, 07:57 PM.
      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


      • #4
        The archeological evidence supports Faust in that there is no evidence of scripture (Pentateuch texts on clay tablets nor pottery as existed elsewhere, i.e. Canaan) in the Iron Age of Judah
        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


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon
          The article asserts that Faust's approach is mainly archeological, but some critics claim Faust gives too much credit to Biblical texts. My view is yes he gives credit to Biblical texts, but does show inaccuracies and 'myths' also. He more describes the OT as ancient literature in the context of history and not a historical record.
          Not in the least. If you actually read any broad treatment on Israelite vs Canaanite or any other surrounding ANE culture, you see vast differences. A good example is Leslie A. Elmer's, Ancient Israel in Light of its Canaanite Background (not a conservative, and fails to see how different the two are in their religious development, despite common cultural elements). William G. Dever, archaeologist and atheist, explains quite clearly how amazingly accurate the record of the Pentateuch (and the rest of the Bible actually) is wherever it can be verified historically/archaeologically (he only disagrees about the Exodus and Joshua's Conquest). Starting from Genesis 12, personal names, customs, and social life in general is depicted with an amazing degree of accuracy for you to simply label it as a "myth" and "the OT as ancient literature in the context of history and not a historical record":

          Personal names: Abraham is a common name in the early 2nd millenium BC. Many other names such as ancestors of Abraham are found in the Mari Tablets (18th century BC), such as Serug and Terah. Jacob is found in Palestine c.1725 BC, and so are all the other names of the patriarchs. Benjamin is the name of an Amorite tribe in the 1800's BC (Beniyamin - sons of the left).

          Social Customs: Various cultural details that had long vanished by the supposed composition of Genesis-Judges (traditions from around c.1000 BC and composition c.800 BC and later) are prevalent in Genesis and on. For example, Sarah cannot conceive and by the law of the time, Abraham was to have a son who was to be considered Sarah's through a concubine. This son, although a slave, was to inherit him, hence the promise to Elezier, Keturah's son. The blessing of Isaac could only be given once according to the law at the time, even if it wasn't written: this was a binding, unbreakable agreement, regardless of the circumstances, thus why Isaac could not bless Esau, or take his blessing back. There are many more such examples.

          Evidence in the Scriptures themselves: I only need to quote the Pulpit Commentary in Exodus 2:3ff to show how apparent (at least to me), the authenticity of the OT is:

          Originally posted by http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tpc/view.cgi?bk=1&ch=2
          [Exodus 2:3] She took for him an ark of bulrushes. The words translated "ark" and "bulrushes" are both of Egyptian origin, the former corresponding to the ordinary word for "chest," which is feb, teba, or tebat, and the latter corresponding to the Egyptian kam, which is the same in Coptic, and designates the papyrus plant. This is a strong-growing rush, with a triangular stem, which attains the height of from 10 to 15 feet. The Egyptian paper was made from its pith. The rush itself was used for various purposes — among others for boat-building (Plin. 'H. N.' 6:22; 7:16; Theophrast, 4:9; Pint. 'De Isid. et Osir.' § 18, etc.), as appears from the monuments. It would be a very good material for the sort of purpose to which Jochebed applied it. She daubed it with slime and with pitch. The word translated "slime" is the same as that used in Genesis 11:3, which is generally thought to mean "mineral pitch" or "bitumen." According to Strabo and Dioderus, that material was largely used by the Egyptians for the embalming of corpses, and was imported into Egypt from Palestine. Boats are sometimes covered with it externally at the present day; but Jochebed seems to have used vegetable pitch- the ordinary pitch of commerce — for the purpose. Here again the Hebrew word is taken from the Egyptian. She laid it in the flags. "Suph," the word translated "flags," is a modification of the Egyptian tuff, which has that meaning. Water-plants of all kinds abound in the backwaters of the Nile. and the marshy tracts communicating with it. The object of placing the ark in a thicket of reeds probably was, that it might not float away out of sight. The river's brink. Literally, the lip of the river — an Egyptian idiom.
          Just reading on, one sees more and more evidence for the historicity of the OT and not just a mere piece of "ancient literature in the context of history" containing "myths", including the common name "Moses" around the time period and so on.

          I believe Faust presents a firm archeological foundation for what I have proposed in other threads and dialogues. The Pentateuch and other books of the OT like the Psalms were first compiled from none Hebrew sources, and edited and added to later with other Hebrew writings to make up the OT and other related writings.
          What you quoted supports no such thing. Faust actually rejects the idea that there could be so many books of the OT that are placed in the Post-Exilic period, such as Deutero and Trito-Isaiah, etc. His evidence for a "depleted Judea", however, is not very solid imo.


          The archeological evidence supports Faust in that there is no evidence of scripture (Pentateuch texts on clay tablets nor pottery as existed elsewhere, i.e. Canaan) in the Iron Age of Judah
          I don't see what archaeological evidence you see that supports this, especially since no copies were made of the Books of Moses (Deuteronomy wasn't even rediscovered because of this until Josiah's day c.621 BC), which sat in the Ark of the Covenant. Moreover, if you see some of the evidence presented by Kenneth Kitchen in his On the Reliability of the Old Testament, you can quickly see how the Pentateuch fits much better in the 2nd millenium BC rather than the first.

          Please do some more research next time before making blanket statements.
          Last edited by Cornelius; 04-14-2015, 10:23 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Shunny
            What was Judah like in Iron Age I and II ?
            Well, I thought Judah's acting was good in the original, but Iron Age Part II was a cinematographic masterpiece! While the plot was slightly thinner in the sequel, I believe the acting was a notch above. But to be fair to part I, the richness of the various on-location settings really anchored the performances of the cast.

            I'd rate Part I:

            4-1-2-stars.jpg

            And Part II:

            5star-Copy-630x280.jpg
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
              Not in the least. If you actually read any broad treatment on Israelite vs Canaanite or any other surrounding ANE culture, you see vast differences. A good example is Leslie A. Elmer's, Ancient Israel in Light of its Canaanite Background (not a conservative, and fails to see how different the two are in their religious development, despite common cultural elements). William G. Dever, archaeologist and atheist, explains quite clearly how amazingly accurate the record of the Pentateuch (and the rest of the Bible actually) is wherever it can be verified historically/archaeologically (he only disagrees about the Exodus and Joshua's Conquest). Starting from Genesis 12, personal names, customs, and social life in general is depicted with an amazing degree of accuracy for you to simply label it as a "myth" and "the OT as ancient literature in the context of history and not a historical record":

              Personal names: Abraham is a common name in the early 2nd millenium BC. Many other names such as ancestors of Abraham are found in the Mari Tablets (18th century BC), such as Serug and Terah. Jacob is found in Palestine c.1725 BC, and so are all the other names of the patriarchs. Benjamin is the name of an Amorite tribe in the 1800's BC (Beniyamin - sons of the left).

              Social Customs: Various cultural details that had long vanished by the supposed composition of Genesis-Judges (traditions from around c.1000 BC and composition c.800 BC and later) are prevalent in Genesis and on. For example, Sarah cannot conceive and by the law of the time, Abraham was to have a son who was to be considered Sarah's through a concubine. This son, although a slave, was to inherit him, hence the promise to Elezier, Keturah's son. The blessing of Isaac could only be given once according to the law at the time, even if it wasn't written: this was a binding, unbreakable agreement, regardless of the circumstances, thus why Isaac could not bless Esau, or take his blessing back. There are many more such examples.

              Evidence in the Scriptures themselves: I only need to quote the Pulpit Commentary in Exodus 2:3ff to show how apparent (at least to me), the authenticity of the OT is:



              Just reading on, one sees more and more evidence for the historicity of the OT and not just a mere piece of "ancient literature in the context of history" containing "myths", including the common name "Moses" around the time period and so on.



              What you quoted supports no such thing. Faust actually rejects the idea that there could be so many books of the OT that are placed in the Post-Exilic period, such as Deutero and Trito-Isaiah, etc. His evidence for a "depleted Judea", however, is not very solid imo.




              I don't see what archaeological evidence you see that supports this, especially since no copies were made of the Books of Moses (Deuteronomy wasn't even rediscovered because of this until Josiah's day c.621 BC), which sat in the Ark of the Covenant. Moreover, if you see some of the evidence presented by Kenneth Kitchen in his On the Reliability of the Old Testament, you can quickly see how the Pentateuch fits much better in the 2nd millenium BC rather than the first.

              Please do some more research next time before making blanket statements.
              Not blanket statements. It was backed by references. it remains fact that we lack early Hebrew texts, and what we have are early Canaanite and Babylonian texts. The existence of significant Hebrew texts before about ~800-600 BCE is heavy speculation

              Selective disagreement with Faust reflects your bias.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-14-2015, 03:29 PM.
              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


              • #8
                BUMP: I guess we have to look at some of the earliest texts or artefact we do have. The early fragment of the OT is the Ketef Hinnom heirloom, which is a text from Numbers. Amazing stuff in my opinion, possibly dating back to 600BC.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Not blanket statements. It was backed by references. it remains fact that we lack early Hebrew texts, and what we have are early Canaanite and Babylonian texts. The existence of significant Hebrew texts before about ~800-600 BCE is heavy speculation

                  Selective disagreement with Faust reflects your bias.
                  You are yourself reading your own bias into Faust. Most of what we can say about the development of the biblical texts is, of course, speculative and hypothetical, but Faust does in fact believe that 'biblical source materials were being collated and preserved during the monarchies' and that 'much of the biblical material reflects Iron Age II reality and background'.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    You are yourself reading your own bias into Faust. Most of what we can say about the development of the biblical texts is, of course, speculative and hypothetical, but Faust does in fact believe that 'biblical source materials were being collated and preserved during the monarchies' and that 'much of the biblical material reflects Iron Age II reality and background'.
                    So what highlighted!?!?!? Reflecting Iron Age II does not mean the text is in any way significantly from that period. No known Hebrew text dated before ~600 BCE.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      So what highlighted!?!?!? Reflecting Iron Age II does not mean the text is in any way significantly from that period. No known Hebrew text dated before ~600 BCE.
                      Would you consider the five lines of inscription written in ink on a ceramic pottery shard (ostracon) found Khirbet Qeiyafa (Elah Fortress -- 32 km/20 miles southeast of Jerusalem) as counting since it has been dated via radiocarbon dating of burnt olive pits found in conjunction with the shard as dating somewhere between 975 and 1000 B.C.? IIRC, analysis of the pottery remains themselves have also been confirmed them as coming from the same time although I'm not sure what method of testing was used to verify this.

                      The shard itself was discovered by a volunteer near the stairs and stone washtub of an excavated home

                      The discoverer, Yosef Garfinkel a professor of Prehistoric Archaeology and of Archaeology of the Biblical Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and curator of the museum of Yarmukian Culture at Kibbutz Sha'ar HaGolan, has identified the text as being Hebrew written in Proto-Canaanite script and although unearthed in late 2008 is still in the process of translating it although several root words have already been translated, including those for "judge," "king" and "slave." Still, others have proposed various translations

                      The French Catholic priest Émile Puech, a director of research at Paris' Centre national de la recherche scientifique (French National Centre for Scientific Research -- the largest governmental research organization in France as well as the largest fundamental science agency in all of Europe) has proposed that the text says:
                      Do not oppress, and serve God ... despoiled him/her
                      The judge and the widow wept; he had the power
                      over the resident alien and the child, he eliminated them together
                      The men and the chiefs/officers have established a king
                      He marked 60 [?] servants among the communities/habitations/generations

                      He thinks this should be understood as a locally written copy of a message notifying officials of the ascent of Saul to the throne. Puech considered the language to be Canaanite or Hebrew without Philistine influence.

                      In contrast Gershon Galil, Professor of Biblical Studies and Ancient History and former chair of the Department of Jewish History at the University of Haifa, believes it should be translated
                      you shall not do [it], but worship (the god) [El]
                      Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
                      [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
                      the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king
                      Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger

                      Galil contends that the text was essentially a social statement relating to slaves, widows and orphans and notes that text "uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and `avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages. The content itself, it is argued, was also unfamiliar to all the cultures in the region besides that of Hebrew society."

                      Complicating matters is the fact that the text on the 150 x 165 mm (6" x 6˝") shard is poorly preserved being faded and faint.




                      Some have cast doubt on the finding based on whether or not the ruins are actually ancient Israelite or Philistine but Garfinkel has countered these skeptics by noting that the pottery is virtually the same type and style as what has been found at other ancient Israelite sites. Even more telling, excavation over the past eight years has found no trace of any remains of pigs -- which is usually considered an indicator for distinguishing Israelite sites from Philistine ones.

                      Further, according to Garfinkel (who specializes in the Protohistoric era of the Near East and has excavated numerous Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites, including Gesher, Yiftahel, Neolithic Ashkelon, Sha'ar HaGolan, Tel ‘Ali and Tel Tsaf) Elah Fortress has "a town plan characteristic of the Kingdom of Judah that is also known from other sites such as Beit Shemesh, Tell en-Nasbeh, Tell Beit Mirsim and Beersheba.
                      Last edited by rogue06; 05-02-2015, 04:27 PM.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        So what highlighted!?!?!? Reflecting Iron Age II does not mean the text is in any way significantly from that period. No known Hebrew text dated before ~600 BCE.
                        You really do not understand the significance? Have you now abandoned your earlier misunderstanding of Faust? As seen in this thread:

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Faust made the claim that they were not capable of producing any scripture before the exile as many claim, and backed it up with archeology. ...
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Would you consider the five lines of inscription written in ink on a ceramic pottery shard (ostracon) found Khirbet Qeiyafa (Elah Fortress -- 32 km/20 miles southeast of Jerusalem) as counting since it has been dated via radiocarbon dating of burnt olive pits found in conjunction with the shard as dating somewhere between 975 and 1000 B.C.? IIRC, analysis of the pottery remains themselves have also been confirmed them as coming from the same time although I'm not sure what method of testing was used to verify this.

                          The shard itself was discovered by a volunteer near the stairs and stone washtub of an excavated home

                          The discoverer, Yosef Garfinkel a professor of Prehistoric Archaeology and of Archaeology of the Biblical Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and curator of the museum of Yarmukian Culture at Kibbutz Sha'ar HaGolan, has identified the text as being Hebrew written in Proto-Canaanite script and although unearthed in late 2008 is still in the process of translating it although several root words have already been translated, including those for "judge," "king" and "slave." Still, others have proposed various translations

                          The French Catholic priest Émile Puech, a director of research at Paris' Centre national de la recherche scientifique (French National Centre for Scientific Research -- the largest governmental research organization in France as well as the largest fundamental science agency in all of Europe) has proposed that the text says:
                          Do not oppress, and serve God ... despoiled him/her
                          The judge and the widow wept; he had the power
                          over the resident alien and the child, he eliminated them together
                          The men and the chiefs/officers have established a king
                          He marked 60 [?] servants among the communities/habitations/generations

                          He thinks this should be understood as a locally written copy of a message notifying officials of the ascent of Saul to the throne. Puech considered the language to be Canaanite or Hebrew without Philistine influence.

                          In contrast Gershon Galil, Professor of Biblical Studies and Ancient History and former chair of the Department of Jewish History at the University of Haifa, believes it should be translated
                          you shall not do [it], but worship (the god) [El]
                          Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
                          [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
                          the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king
                          Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger

                          Galil contends that the text was essentially a social statement relating to slaves, widows and orphans and notes that text "uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and `avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages. The content itself, it is argued, was also unfamiliar to all the cultures in the region besides that of Hebrew society."

                          Complicating matters is the fact that the text on the 150 x 165 mm (6" x 6˝") shard is poorly preserved being faded and faint.


                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]6135[/ATTACH]

                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]6136[/ATTACH]


                          Some have cast doubt on the finding based on whether or not the ruins are actually ancient Israelite or Philistine but Garfinkel has countered these skeptics by noting that the pottery is virtually the same type and style as what has been found at other ancient Israelite sites. Even more telling, excavation over the past eight years has found no trace of any remains of pigs -- which is usually considered an indicator for distinguishing Israelite sites from Philistine ones.

                          Further, according to Garfinkel (who specializes in the Protohistoric era of the Near East and has excavated numerous Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites, including Gesher, Yiftahel, Neolithic Ashkelon, Sha'ar HaGolan, Tel ‘Ali and Tel Tsaf) Elah Fortress has "a town plan characteristic of the Kingdom of Judah that is also known from other sites such as Beit Shemesh, Tell en-Nasbeh, Tell Beit Mirsim and Beersheba.
                          I do not consider the above text from the Hebrew Old Testament scripture. I consider it text of early Canaanite/Hebrew Culture as a part of the evolution of Hebrew language and culture that later became a distinctive tribe. The same is true for earlier Canaanite texts that were found in the Book of Psalms.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I do not consider the above text from the Hebrew Old Testament scripture. I consider it text of early Canaanite/Hebrew Culture as a part of the evolution of Hebrew language and culture that later became a distinctive tribe. The same is true for earlier Canaanite texts that were found in the Book of Psalms.
                            I guess merely rejecting evidence out of hand that doesn't conform to your preconceptions is one way to insure that you're right

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              I guess merely rejecting evidence out of hand that doesn't conform to your preconceptions is one way to insure that you're right
                              One small piece of pottery maybe primitive Hebrew, and one piece Canaanite/Hebrew is not much evidence at all when neighboring cultures had libraries. Where is the real evidence for anything of significance? Still waiting . . .

                              Not rejecting anything of consequence, because I do not have a religious agenda to justify a sacred scripture to justify ones ancient paradigm based on scraps.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-02-2015, 10:58 PM.
                              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 rogue06, 11-23-2020, 07:11 PM
                              9 responses
                              58 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-09-2020, 06:44 AM
                              1 response
                              11 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Seeker, 11-01-2020, 12:47 AM
                              8 responses
                              69 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post ReformedApologist  
                              Started by Teallaura, 08-05-2018, 08:07 PM
                              42 responses
                              7,532 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X