What was Judah like in Iron Age I and II

[shunyadragon]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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

[Cornelius]

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:

[Exodus 2:3] She took for him an ark of bulrushes.

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.

[Bill the Cat]

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

[shunyadragon]

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.

[OldHat]

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.

[robrecht]

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'.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[rogue06]

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.

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

0000000000Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription.jpg

0000000000Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription 2.jpg

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.

[robrecht]

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:

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. ...

[shunyadragon]

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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6135[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6136[/ATTACH]

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.

[rogue06]

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

[shunyadragon]

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.