Archaeology and the Hebrew Bible

[Complexity]

its a convention adopted by the Heebs to avoid upsetting anyone upstairs


saying his actual name could get you stoned apparently

Oh, I know - I just wanted him to admit that he was a believer.

All hail M-RD-K!

 

[TimCallahan]

Oh, I know - I just wanted him to admit that he was a believer.
All hail M-RD-K!

Are you actually referring to me in the hilited area? I'm the religion editor for Skeptic Magazine and an atheist.

 

[Complexity]

Are you actually referring to me in the hilited area? I'm the religion editor for Skeptic Magazine and an atheist.

Oh, yes, I am actually referring to you.

I wanted to know why you were paying lip-service to superstitious nonsense by capitalizing so-called 'sacred' words. It is embarrassing and I wish you would stop doing so.

As to even having a 'religion editor' in Skeptic Magazine...

 

[TimCallahan]

Oh, yes, I am actually referring to you.

I wanted to know why you were paying lip-service to superstitious nonsense by capitalizing so-called 'sacred' words. It is embarrassing and I wish you would stop doing so.

As to even having a 'religion editor' in Skeptic Magazine...

This is just plain silly. I wrote the biblical quote the way it was written, and I will continue to do so. To do otherwise would be a falsification. I will also write down such quotes as, "Let us make man in our own image," that clearly indicate polytheism, just as they appear. I won't do this because of any agenda I have. I'll simply quote it because that's the way it's written.

The reason Skeptic Magazine has a religion editor is to deal with religious issues and religious apologists, such as Dinesh D'Souza and Alvin Plantinga. I'm also the one who wrote two books for Millennium Press, the book publishing arm of Skeptic, on biblical issues, one debunking biblical prophecy claims, another on the many mythic parallels to biblical stories. Michael Shermer also had me deal with the whole Jesus-and-Mary-Magdalene-were-married nonsense that came up in the wake of the popularity of The DaVinci Code.

Now, getting back to the assertion by Finkelstein & Silberman that Solomon's temple was no big deal as some sort of architectural wonder, they're absolutely right. Even the very biased biblical text supports them. Solomon's temple would have been a simple "long room temple" of the sort that was common throughout the Near East and the Balkans. That 1 Kings considers it a big deal demonstrates that Israel and Judah were minor players in the world of the ancient Near East. This makes me a believer?

 

[MG1962]

Tim a pro tip for you - some here equate knowledge of something as support

 

[Complexity]

This is just plain silly. I wrote the biblical quote the way it was written, and I will continue to do so. To do otherwise would be a falsification. I will also write down such quotes as, "Let us make man in our own image," that clearly indicate polytheism, just as they appear. I won't do this because of any agenda I have. I'll simply quote it because that's the way it's written.

The reason Skeptic Magazine has a religion editor is to deal with religious issues and religious apologists, such as Dinesh D'Souza and Alvin Plantinga. I'm also the one who wrote two books for Millennium Press, the book publishing arm of Skeptic, on biblical issues, one debunking biblical prophecy claims, another on the many mythic parallels to biblical stories. Michael Shermer also had me deal with the whole Jesus-and-Mary-Magdalene-were-married nonsense that came up in the wake of the popularity of The DaVinci Code.

Now, getting back to the assertion by Finkelstein & Silberman that Solomon's temple was no big deal as some sort of architectural wonder, they're absolutely right. Even the very biased biblical text supports them. Solomon's temple would have been a simple "long room temple" of the sort that was common throughout the Near East and the Balkans. That 1 Kings considers it a big deal demonstrates that Israel and Judah were minor players in the world of the ancient Near East. This makes me a believer?

I'm not quite sure what you are.

I know that some people can find absolutely anything interesting without believing in it. Marduk comes to mind - his knowledge is encyclopedic in several areas involving ancient cultures and religions yet there is no doubt where his opinions stand, and he is a high-quality, no-nonsense guy.

You - I'm don't know where you stand. I've been uncomfortable with some of your posts for a while and have taken to avoiding threads that you've started. I've been under the impression that you are a believer in judaic/christian nonsense. You say you are an atheist, so I'll assume that you are and you know what that means. I do not know why your some of your posts raised red flags for me. It was more than your knowledge in the area and your interest in the area.

It does not really matter.

 

[Complexity]

Tim a pro tip for you - some here equate knowledge of something as support

Nope. I thought I had picked up on something more akin to enablement.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm not quite sure what you are.

I know that some people can find absolutely anything interesting without believing in it. Marduk comes to mind - his knowledge is encyclopedic in several areas involving ancient cultures and religions yet there is no doubt where his opinions stand, and he is a high-quality, no-nonsense guy.

You - I'm don't know where you stand. I've been uncomfortable with some of your posts for a while and have taken to avoiding threads that you've started. I've been under the impression that you are a believer in judaic/christian nonsense. You say you are an atheist, so I'll assume that you are and you know what that means. I do not know why your some of your posts raised red flags for me. It was more than your knowledge in the area and your interest in the area.

It does not really matter.

So, to sum it up, you're basically saying that I might be a liar, based on some sort of gut feeling you have over something I've posted that your think for some inexplicable reason makes me sound religious. But, even though you've rather recklessly thrown accusations around and have treated me in an insulting manner, it doesn't really matter. Have I missed anything?

 

[Brainache]

So, to sum it up, you're basically saying that I might be a liar, based on some sort of gut feeling you have over something I've posted that your think for some inexplicable reason makes me sound religious. But, even though you've rather recklessly thrown accusations around and have treated me in an insulting manner, it doesn't really matter. Have I missed anything?

Yep. You missed the part about the absolute evil of everyone religious.

Complexity protects us from them...

 

[Complexity]

So, to sum it up, you're basically saying that I might be a liar, based on some sort of gut feeling you have over something I've posted that your think for some inexplicable reason makes me sound religious. But, even though you've rather recklessly thrown accusations around and have treated me in an insulting manner, it doesn't really matter. Have I missed anything?

I'm sorry I was on a short fuse yesterday - it was not a good day.

I've had some major issues with christianity and christians - I have no contact with my siblings, nieces, or nephews as a result. I am apparently unclean, being an atheist and gay.

It was only recently that I noticed your name popping up around here. I don't remember what the context was. I haven't found myself interested in several of the threads in which you posted. I gained the impression that you were a religious biblical scholar, probably due to scanning some posts rather than reading them with care. I really dislike religious belief.

The last skeptics' magazine that I read was Skeptical Inquirer, which I discontinued in anger at their inclusion of religious belief in skepticism.

I'm sorry I lumped you in with that crowd. I was hasty and angry.

 

[OCaptain]

Tim a pro tip for you - some here equate knowledge of something as support

Here! Here! Isn't that the truth? That so succinctly explains the fear of learning about certain topics some have on JREF.

Tim, I'll be responding in depth asap to your correct characterization of Solomon's temple as comparitively modest. Got a couple of very long days ahead, starting in an hour!

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm sorry I was on a short fuse yesterday - it was not a good day.

I've had some major issues with christianity and christians - I have no contact with my siblings, nieces, or nephews as a result. I am apparently unclean, being an atheist and gay.

It was only recently that I noticed your name popping up around here. I don't remember what the context was. I haven't found myself interested in several of the threads in which you posted. I gained the impression that you were a religious biblical scholar, probably due to scanning some posts rather than reading them with care. I really dislike religious belief.

The last skeptics' magazine that I read was Skeptical Inquirer, which I discontinued in anger at their inclusion of religious belief in skepticism.

I'm sorry I lumped you in with that crowd. I was hasty and angry.

Thank you for this gracious apology. I certainly accept it, and I'm sorry to hear of your family problems. While I don't suffer anything anywhere nearly as severe as what you suffer as the lone (I assume) gay in your family, my wife and I have experienced a degree of familial isolation from some family members as the token left-wingers. Families of affinity are, I think, the only answer to this sort of problem.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

This is just plain silly. I wrote the biblical quote the way it was written, and I will continue to do so. To do otherwise would be a falsification. I will also write down such quotes as, "Let us make man in our own image," that clearly indicate polytheism, just as they appear. I won't do this because of any agenda I have. I'll simply quote it because that's the way it's written.

thatisnotexactlytruemanyofthepeculiaritiesoftheoriginaltextarenotsimilarlypreservedbutanexceptionisalwaysmadeforhisholynameforsomereason

Which itself is incorrect and presented for readability purposes. What I meant to write, of course:

thtsntxctlytrmnyfthpclrtsfthrgnltxtrntsmlrlyprsrvdbtnxcptnslwysmdfrhshlynmfrsmrsn

 

[Marduk]

Thank you for this gracious apology. I certainly accept it, and I'm sorry to hear of your family problems. While I don't suffer anything anywhere nearly as severe as what you suffer as the lone (I assume) gay in your family, my wife and I have experienced a degree of familial isolation from some family members as the token left-wingers. Families of affinity are, I think, the only answer to this sort of problem.

yanno, he attacked me first too, now we're good friends. I think its a gay thing

but its probably just a man thing


Tim, where was the author of Exodus sitting when he wrote it, round about what year would you say that was ?

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snip) . . . Tim, where was the author of Exodus sitting when he wrote it, round about what year would you say that was ?

The author? I'm pretty sure that you are acquainted with the Documentary Theory. Thus, the "J" sections of Exodus would have been written ca. 850 BCE by somebody in the kingdom of Judah. The "E" sections would have been written a bit later in the northern kingdom of Israel. Richard Elliott Friedman thinks that "P" was written during the reign of Hezekiah (715 - 692 BCE), but most scholars say it was written during the Babylonian Captivity (586 - 538 BCE), which would also mean it was written in Mesopotamia.

 

[TimCallahan]

The author? I'm pretty sure that you are acquainted with the Documentary Theory. Thus, the "J" sections of Exodus would have been written ca. 850 BCE by somebody in the kingdom of Judah. The "E" sections would have been written a bit later in the northern kingdom of Israel. Richard Elliott Friedman thinks that "P" was written during the reign of Hezekiah (715 - 692 BCE), but most scholars say it was written during the Babylonian Captivity (586 - 538 BCE), which would also mean it was written in Mesopotamia.

I might add that, while archaeological evidence for many of the kings of Israel (particularly Ahab) and many of the kings of Judah (particularly Hezekiah) is strong and firm, there is absolutely no archaeological or historical support for either the Exodus or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. This is true regardless of whether one places it chronologically in the 1200s or the 1400s.

 

[OCaptain]

I agree. The question is: Did the House of David, however briefly, hold on to a united kingdom of Israel? Or was this all propaganda? Whenever I'm looking into a historical kernel behind a legendary realm I use three criteria to judge the likelihood of of its historicity:

1) Plausibility: It's plausible that a city built on the Dardanelles, in a position to intercept and control major trade routes might grow wealthy, excite the envy and enmity of some of its neighbors and eventually be sacked by them. Thus Troy is plausible. It's implausible that a large Island the size and shape of the state of Colorado, located in the North Atlantic would sink in a single day and night. Thus, Atlantis is implausible. It's plausible that, at a time when Egypt was in a state of decrepitude, and Assyria hadn't yet begun its Iron Age expansion, a pocket empire could briefly hold sway in the Leant. So, the mini-empire of David and Solomon is plausible.

2) Independent attestation. The only ancient source for the myth of Atlantis was Plato. All other writings from ancient time were based on his. Thus, there is no independent attestation that Atlantis existed. Troy, on the other hand is referred to by Homer, Hesiod and, in picture form, by a number of vase painters. One vase from Mykonos, dated to ca. 800 BCE, depicts the Trojan horse being taken into the city. In addition, we have Hittite diplomatic texts referring to a city that is probably Troy.

3) Archaeological evidence: Zip for Atlantis vs. the nine cities of Troy.

With respect to the existence of David and the House of David, we now have another reference outside the Bible. Likewise, the Tel Dan inscription can be taken as some form of archaeological proof. However, that's only proof of the existence of someone named David and the likelihood that his descendants ruled Judah, but not necessarily Judah and Israel.

Okay, sorry for the long delay. Life has now allowed me to give this topic the focus it deserves.

I find quite a bit of interesting context for developments that - at least on the face of it - appear to fortify some of the biblical passages with regard to the Jerusalem of David and Solomon.

The Ain Dara temple in Aleppo, Syria, summarized on this Wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain_Dara_temple - in its morphology and what we know of its common usage, closely parallels the putative Temple of Solomon. In use from ca 1300BCE through 740BCE, it is a long, narrow tripartite structure featuring a porch, a middle chamber, and an inner sanctum. Standing guard over both temples are two sphinxes (or Cherubim). In the Ain Dara temple, they were outside the inner sanctum, while the bible records them as being located inside Solomon's version.

The article contained in this pdf document enumerates the similarities between the two. Please consult.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/Ayn Dara Parallel to Solomons Temple.pdf

I mention this temple structure to indicate that it is very rapidly becoming understood as an analogue to - and quite possibly an inspiration for - the Temple of Solomon from the book of Kings. It certainly adds weight to the biblical passages that describe the construction of the ToS. Interestingly, I Kings 9:11 records Solomon ceding 20 northern villages to Hiram, King of Tyre, in exchange for building supplies (commonly translated as cedar, pine, and gold). Apparently, Hiram thought he got the worst end of that deal, finding the land "good for nothing" (I Kings 9:12). Tyre is regarded as being likely located in modern Syria, making it reasonable to suggest that the building programs of Solomon relied heavily upon the architectural strengths of the Syrians, the design of the Ain Dara temple having been standing beforehand.

An accurate 3D reconstruction of the Ain Dara would be very revelatory with regards what any possible Solomon's Temple might have looked like.

----------------------------------------------

Also, indications of the earliest instances of script that was in the process of becoming Hebrew (called "proto-Hebrew") can be found at the Ben Guvrin valley.

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

The stone contains a rough script that dates unquestionably prior to the 10th century BCE, in graffito form. McCarter suggests after examinations that the haphazard style of the letter forms suggest a practice attempt by a scribe to refine his writing. McCarter also sees parallels in the Gezer calendar, and date to the mid-11th century BCE.

See Tappy, Ron E., P. Kyle McCarter, Marilyn J. Lundberg, Bruce Zuckerman (2006). "An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century B.C.E. from the Judaean Shephelah". BASOR 344 (November): 5–46.

I won't go more into the Gezer Calendar unless someone simply wants to discuss it more in-depth.

 

[TimCallahan]

Okay, sorry for the long delay. Life has now allowed me to give this topic the focus it deserves.

I find quite a bit of interesting context for developments that - at least on the face of it - appear to fortify some of the biblical passages with regard to the Jerusalem of David and Solomon.

The Ain Dara temple in Aleppo, Syria, summarized on this Wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain_Dara_temple - in its morphology and what we know of its common usage, closely parallels the putative Temple of Solomon. In use from ca 1300BCE through 740BCE, it is a long, narrow tripartite structure featuring a porch, a middle chamber, and an inner sanctum. Standing guard over both temples are two sphinxes (or Cherubim). In the Ain Dara temple, they were outside the inner sanctum, while the bible records them as being located inside Solomon's version.

The article contained in this pdf document enumerates the similarities between the two. Please consult.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/Ayn Dara Parallel to Solomons Temple.pdf

I mention this temple structure to indicate that it is very rapidly becoming understood as an analogue to - and quite possibly an inspiration for - the Temple of Solomon from the book of Kings. It certainly adds weight to the biblical passages that describe the construction of the ToS. Interestingly, I Kings 9:11 records Solomon ceding 20 northern villages to Hiram, King of Tyre, in exchange for building supplies (commonly translated as cedar, pine, and gold). Apparently, Hiram thought he got the worst end of that deal, finding the land "good for nothing" (I Kings 9:12). Tyre is regarded as being likely located in modern Syria, making it reasonable to suggest that the building programs of Solomon relied heavily upon the architectural strengths of the Syrians, the design of the Ain Dara temple having been standing beforehand.

An accurate 3D reconstruction of the Ain Dara would be very revelatory with regards what any possible Solomon's Temple might have looked like.

----------------------------------------------

Also, indications of the earliest instances of script that was in the process of becoming Hebrew (called "proto-Hebrew") can be found at the Ben Guvrin valley.

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

The stone contains a rough script that dates unquestionably prior to the 10th century BCE, in graffito form. McCarter suggests after examinations that the haphazard style of the letter forms suggest a practice attempt by a scribe to refine his writing. McCarter also sees parallels in the Gezer calendar, and date to the mid-11th century BCE.

See Tappy, Ron E., P. Kyle McCarter, Marilyn J. Lundberg, Bruce Zuckerman (2006). "An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century B.C.E. from the Judaean Shephelah". BASOR 344 (November): 5–46.

I won't go more into the Gezer Calendar unless someone simply wants to discuss it more in-depth.

As to the Ain Dara temple, yes "long room" temples were common throughout the eastern Mediterranean, Asia Minor and the Balkans in the Bronze Age and the style would certainly have carried through to the first millennium BCE. On page 291, figure 22, of my book, Secret Origins of the Bible, I show floor plans of 11 such temples, along with a floor plan, based on 1 Kings, of Solomon's temple.

It is possible that Solomon's temple was aligned facing east, so that the rising sun, shining through the open door, would reach into the Holy of holies on the equinoxes. One might hop that aerial imaging could demonstrate if this is true or if the temples foundations even exist. Unfortunately, digging on the temple mount would probably disturb the Dome of the Rock, the second most holy site in Islam. Thus, it would be worth one's life to dig there.

 

[OCaptain]

As to the Ain Dara temple, yes "long room" temples were common throughout the eastern Mediterranean, Asia Minor and the Balkans in the Bronze Age and the style would certainly have carried through to the first millennium BCE. On page 291, figure 22, of my book, Secret Origins of the Bible, I show floor plans of 11 such temples, along with a floor plan, based on 1 Kings, of Solomon's temple.

It is possible that Solomon's temple was aligned facing east, so that the rising sun, shining through the open door, would reach into the Holy of holies on the equinoxes. One might hop that aerial imaging could demonstrate if this is true or if the temples foundations even exist. Unfortunately, digging on the temple mount would probably disturb the Dome of the Rock, the second most holy site in Islam. Thus, it would be worth one's life to dig there.

Do you think that a temple of Solomon would have been designed with a physical representation of YHWH within the holy of holies?

Was the Ark of the Covenant designed as a throne for the deity? Do you understand the Ark to have been a real object?

 

[TimCallahan]

Do you think that a temple of Solomon would have been designed with a physical representation of YHWH within the holy of holies?

Was the Ark of the Covenant designed as a throne for the deity? Do you understand the Ark to have been a real object?

I have no problem with the ark being a real object, seen by the worshippers as the throne of their god. I believe it resided in the holy of holies. I don't think YHWH was represented. His cult seems to have been, for the most part, anti-iconic.

I suspect the ark of the covenant was destroyed, along with the temple, by the Chaldeans. The most likely building stone used for the temple would have been limestone, i.e. calcium carbonate. If brushwood was piled against the temple and set alight. It would have quickly generated a great deal of heat. The bronze leaf coating the walls would have begun to melt, transmitting its heat to the stone. The cedar roof beams, wooden roof planks and inside wooden paneling would have caught fire, burned and transmitted their heat to the stone, as well. Limestone, like other carbonates, decomposes when heated to temperatures that would only make silicates and aluminosilicates red hot. Limestone decomposes into carbon dioxide - which goes up in smoke, carrying over half the molecular weight with it - and calcium oxide, or quicklime - which melts. In the resulting inferno, the ark, a wooden box surmounted by gold images of cherubim, would have been been consumed.