is bible archeology real?

[HansMustermann]

@Craig
While I understand your point too, and agree with it, it seems to me like ddt's remark is pretty relevant too.

Actually, it's even worse. While in English "House Of Windsor" carries a certain connotation of an important family, maybe even dynasty, "beth" in Hebrew seems to work most of the time like "heim" in German. You know, where you can have place names like "Waldheim" (home in the woods) without denoting any particular family or dynasty. The syntactic meaning is much more related to the literal house or home, than figuratively to a great family. And its main figurative meaning seems to be of a place or settlement.

Or in Hebrew, you have stuff like Bethel (House Of God), Bethlehem (House Of Bread), Bet She'an (House Of Tranquility) or Beit Guvrin (House Of Men), etc. Exactly zero of those places are based on someone's name.

Additionally, there is no real limit on how big a "beth" had to be. Some of those places were or are tiny villages of no importance. So even assuming it does mean "house of David", it really carries no further information. It doesn't say it has to be a big kingdom, and it doesn't say it had to be a notable dynasty.

 

[learner]

There's more than one pillar of salt near the Dead Sea too. Which of them is Lot's wife?

It's the one with Boobs. I read it in a book.

 

[ddt]

I think later Israelite tale-tellers invented stories to account for the existence of ruins their listeners could see around them. Oh, it was our ancestors who destroyed all these places. That's how powerful our God YHWH is.

That sounds to me like the most plausible explanation.

In the OT Joshua takes the city of Ai, and of course slaughters all its inhabitants. The name of the city in fact means "ruin". So the story is fictitious. It is intended to explain the existence of a ruin which could be seen by later people. The modern name of the site is Et-Tell, which means the same thing, more or less.

Those Hebrews were not very creative in the names they concocted for their stories, were they? "Adam" just means "man", for another example.

Even if there was a "David" who was first king of the dynasty named for him, so what? Several Israelite kings mentioned in the Bible, including Jehu and Omri, appear in inscriptions left by the Assyrians and others. So what? These are perfectly natural circumstances. Proof of the existence of a king is not proof of the existence of the gods he worshipped.

Apart from the god(s) he worshipped, you've added another assumption: that this David then would have been king. Jerusalem was only a small village at the time, archaeology tells us; nothing like the capital of this grand unified kingdom of the twelve tribes. Or that he sent his bravest soldier into the frontline of battle so he could steal his wife. Like we shouldn't believe that a Scottish general, on the urging of his wife, committed regicide, usurped the throne and embarked on a reign of terror, just because some English playwright wrote that story 500 years later.

So the problem with the "House of David" reference is twofold:
1) it does not establish that "David" had been an actual person;
2) even if this "David" had been a person and founder of the house, it does not establish he was the powerful king from the OT; at most the local chieftain of a village called Jerusalem.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, to play the other side of the debate too, the Akkadians did use the "house" designation with names, in reference to their vassals or defeated enemy or just whoever they first ran into in that land. E.g., "Bit-Khumri" ("bit" being the Assyrian version of "beth"), i.e., "house of Omri" was the rather common name the Assyrians used for one of the kingdoms there.

But again it must be said that even then it was designating a location, not a dynasty. One must read it through that perspective, rather than, dunno, how you'd understand "The House Of Windsor" in English.

So while indeed it's not certain even that it referred to a certain person, it's quite possible that it actually did. You are right though that it's not very clear exactly how big a chieftain he was (if it's a real person,) or whether it really was much of a dynasty or just whoever ruled there when they had a conflict with him.

One can't always assume that just because X is king of Y at some point, so will his descendants. See Harold Godwinson

 

[Cleon]

As a field, "Biblical archaeology" is a mixed bag. Some are genuine, scientifically-minded archaeologists who are studying the cultural context of the Biblical world. Others are born-again ministers who go out and decided that Tel So-and-So is actually the ruins of the tower of Babel, or that a piece of wood found in Turkey is part of Noah's Ark.

There is science to be found, but it's mired in ********.

 

[ddt]

So while indeed it's not certain even that it referred to a certain person, it's quite possible that it actually did. You are right though that it's not very clear exactly how big a chieftain he was (if it's a real person,) or whether it really was much of a dynasty or just whoever ruled there when they had a conflict with him.

If only Israel grew a spine in this respect, gave the middle finger to the Wafq and authorized someone like Israel Finkelstein to put the spade to Temple Mount, we'd find out soon enough. My bet is the result would not look pretty for the hardliners of all three abrahamic stripes.

As a field, "Biblical archaeology" is a mixed bag. Some are genuine, scientifically-minded archaeologists who are studying the cultural context of the Biblical world. Others are born-again ministers who go out and decided that Tel So-and-So is actually the ruins of the tower of Babel, or that a piece of wood found in Turkey is part of Noah's Ark.

The PC name these days is "Syro-Palestinian archaeology". Anyone identifying as a "biblical archaeologist" is likely to be of the second kind.

 

[Craig B]

Like we shouldn't believe that a Scottish general, on the urging of his wife, committed regicide, usurped the throne and embarked on a reign of terror, just because some English playwright wrote that story 500 years later.

Indeed we shouldn't.

Mac Bethad mac Findláich or MacBeth as he is known in English, the Mormaer of Moray, claimed the throne on his own behalf and that of his wife Grauch, and after the death of Duncan made himself king in his place. Respected for his strong leadership qualities, MacBeth was a wise king who ruled successfully for 17 years ... Shakespeare appears to deliberately mix fact and fiction in the play ... Shakespeare's play takes place over a year whereas in reality, MacBeth ruled for 17 years.

 

[dudalb]

Indeed we shouldn't.

Looking forward to seeing Michael Fassbinder as Macbeth and Marion Cotillard as Lady MacBeth in the upcoming film.
Maybe this time they will FINALLY get it right,since the other films of Shakespeare play pretty much fall short..except,ironically, for Kurosawa's "Throne Of Blood" with Toshiro Mufine,which moves the story to Japan during the Samurai era.

 

[smartcooky]

Additionally, there is no real limit on how big a "beth" had to be. Some of those places were or are tiny villages of no importance. So even assuming it does mean "house of David", it really carries no further information. It doesn't say it has to be a big kingdom, and it doesn't say it had to be a notable dynasty.

So, is "Nazareth" a misspelling of "Nazabeth", perhaps "Home of the Nazarenes"?

It was once suggested to me that there was no such place as Nazareth in biblical times, and that the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" does not refer to where he was from but rather that he was allegedly a member of the first century Nazarene sect.


Disclaimer: As always, when I post on this subject, it is from the position of not believing in the reality of Historical Jesus as an individual. I merely address that which is written in the Bible in much the same way that a critic writes about the characters, events and places in a fictional book or movie.

 

[Delvo]

the claim kin the video involving the tower of Babel and Sodom and Gomorrah...think that's accurate?

The one about S&G in particular reminds me of something that's always bugged me about ancient town identifications: when they find ruins of a town, how do they decide what town it was? Did they find a big stone gateway across the main road into it with "ברוכים לסדום" carved on the front of the top piece? Did they find a big ruined building in the middle of the town whose front door said "עמורה בית משפט"? If the name isn't written there, then how does it get applied to the ruins today? The way it actually works is that somebody sees something about the place that fits with some part of the Bible's story, and then applies the name from that story to the ruins. A collapsed temple gets name as the Philistines' site destroyed by Sampson. A town that burned gets named "Sodom/Gomorrah". One with collapsed walls and evidence of major fire at about the same time gets named "Jericho". This isn't one piece of information being used to confirm a prediction that came from another, as we're supposed to think. That would apply if the town's name were somehow discovered independently of the archeological observations that seem to fit one Biblical story or another, instead of applied by choice based on them. When two independently discovered ideas or pieces of information agree, they can support/confirm each other. But when one of them is entirely derived from the other, they can't.

And what does the evidence they're talking about really demonstrate anyway? Fallen walls don't tell us they were brought down by trumpets. Fires don't tell us they were caused by holy fireballs from Heaven. They tell us that something collapsed or burned... in a hot, dry, earthquake-prone environment where some of the construction materials were flammable and others were heavy and brittle. It's like finding evidence that something suffered some kind of water-based damage in a rainforest or swamp. Nothing special needs to be invoked to explain something that's totally mundane and predictable.

what do you think about the tower of Babel in the video? It's more than possible that it was based on the ziggurats of Babylon...but probably wasn't a real place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLviKiEuj30

Not probably; certainly. It's impossible. The site they're talking about is from about 600 BCE. By that time, there were already centuries of writing in multiple languages from sites hundreds or thousands of miles away in roughly opposite directions. Not just writings but the present state of various spoken languages points to the Indo-European language family having started to break up and diversify before twice that long ago, and the Semitic language family more like thrice as long... with the Semitic family being part of the Afro-Asiatic family, which had started doing so at least another few thousand years before that... and we still haven't dealt with how many more thousands of years before that it would take for those separate language families to have a common ancestor, which we're having trouble finding any traces of now because it would need to be so long ago that any evidence of it is rather faded.

Worse yet, that episode undermines a later claim in the same video, because it demonstrates the video maker's willingness to ignore scientific dates, but he later bases an argument on scientific dates (the one about the Dead Sea Scrolls being written too early for Christians to have altered them). What do you suppose might be the mysteriously unstated reason why he accepts standard dating methods in one case and not the other?...

 

[Craig4]

I looked at the video for about five minutes. I just have to ask why you need to ask about debunking it. Anyone who believes the crap in the video is just too stupid to be convinced of reality. I am studying archelogical through a rather good school in the UK but I don't need advanced education in the subject to know the target audience for this video are idiots. What part of the stupidity in this video is not obvious as such to you?

 

[Craig B]

So, is "Nazareth" a misspelling of "Nazabeth", perhaps "Home of the Nazarenes"?
It was once suggested to me that there was no such place as Nazareth in biblical times, and that the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" does not refer to where he was from but rather that he was allegedly a member of the first century Nazarene sect.

Or very possibly a Nazarite like Samson and Samuel.

gMatthew, at 2:23, states

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

This prophecy is not in fact to be found in any extant version of the OT, but it is likely that Matthew did not understand it, wherever he may have encountered it, and assumed it referred to residents of Nazareth, so he made Jesus go and live there.
However, if it is an old text, it must refer to ancient Nazarites, and not to a first century sect.

Nazareth is not mentioned in the OT, or by Josephus, though he names many places in Galilee, where he was active during the rebellion.

 

[Craig B]

Well, to play the other side of the debate too, the Akkadians did use the "house" designation with names, in reference to their vassals or defeated enemy or just whoever they first ran into in that land. E.g., "Bit-Khumri" ("bit" being the Assyrian version of "beth"), i.e., "house of Omri" was the rather common name the Assyrians used for one of the kingdoms there.

Like we shouldn't believe that a Scottish general, on the urging of his wife, committed regicide, usurped the throne and embarked on a reign of terror, just because some English playwright wrote that story 500 years later.

Needless to say, the "Beth" in the name of that monarch has nothing to do with the Semitic word for house, but is the Q-Celtic word for "life". Mac Beatha in modern Gaelic: Son of Life. That is, a man devoted to religion.

 

[Damien Evans]

That sounds to me like the most plausible explanation.

Those Hebrews were not very creative in the names they concocted for their stories, were they? "Adam" just means "man", for another example.


Apart from the god(s) he worshipped, you've added another assumption: that this David then would have been king. Jerusalem was only a small village at the time, archaeology tells us; nothing like the capital of this grand unified kingdom of the twelve tribes. Or that he sent his bravest soldier into the frontline of battle so he could steal his wife. Like we shouldn't believe that a Scottish general, on the urging of his wife, committed regicide, usurped the throne and embarked on a reign of terror, just because some English playwright wrote that story 500 years later.

So the problem with the "House of David" reference is twofold:
1) it does not establish that "David" had been an actual person;
2) even if this "David" had been a person and founder of the house, it does not establish he was the powerful king from the OT; at most the local chieftain of a village called Jerusalem.

True, but at least there's good evidence that Mac Bethad mac Findlaích actually existed and was King of Scotland. We can't say the same for David.

 

[Craig B]

True, but at least there's good evidence that Mac Bethad mac Findlaích actually existed and was King of Scotland. We can't say the same for David.

Well, like Macbeth, you can say it for this David.

David I (Medieval Gaelic: Dabíd mac Maíl Choluim; Modern Gaelic: Daibhidh I mac [Mhaoil] Chaluim; 1084 – 24 May 1153) was a 12th-century ruler who was Prince of the Cumbrians (1113–1124), Earl of Northampton and Huntingdon and later King of the Scots (1124–1153).

 

[ddt]

Or very possibly a Nazarite like Samson and Samuel.

gMatthew, at 2:23, states This prophecy is not in fact to be found in any extant version of the OT, but it is likely that Matthew did not understand it, wherever he may have encountered it, and assumed it referred to residents of Nazareth, so he made Jesus go and live there.
However, if it is an old text, it must refer to ancient Nazarites, and not to a first century sect.

The link you give about Nazarites gives many mentions in the OT. Matthew, of course, could have picked any OT passage and interpreted it as a prophecy.

However, it's not fair to pin this only on Matthew. The place name Nazareth, Nazaret or Nazara can be found in all gospels, and they're not very consistent in spelling. Matthew uses it three times, and each time with different spelling. Then there's the word Nazarenos, which is traditionally translated as "inhabitant of Nazareth". This word only occurs with Mark and Luke. Lastly, there's Nazoraios, which is also traditionally translated as "inhabitant of Nazareth", and occurs in Matthew, in Luke/Acts and in John.

Does the word "Nazarite" appear in the Septuagint? In the story of Samson, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot does use it, but it's not clear to me if that is original text or a later addition.

Nazareth is not mentioned in the OT, or by Josephus, though he names many places in Galilee, where he was active during the rebellion.

That's another problem with archaeological evidence. Up till now, one house has been found in Nazareth, and all evidence points to that it was not more than a small village before the Jewish war. It certainly did not have a synagogue.

 

[HansMustermann]

So, is "Nazareth" a misspelling of "Nazabeth", perhaps "Home of the Nazarenes"?

It was once suggested to me that there was no such place as Nazareth in biblical times, and that the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" does not refer to where he was from but rather that he was allegedly a member of the first century Nazarene sect.


Disclaimer: As always, when I post on this subject, it is from the position of not believing in the reality of Historical Jesus as an individual. I merely address that which is written in the Bible in much the same way that a critic writes about the characters, events and places in a fictional book or movie.

Doubt it, to be honest. For a start, even if Nazabeth would actually mean anything, it wouldn't even work the way you seem to think. Due to how semitic languages work.

The relevant construct is "noun1 noun2", which is the genitive. Of noun2. It means "noun1 OF noun2". E.g., since we're talking the bible, you may recognize "ben enosh" or "ben adam", the words literally being "son man", but actually meaning "son OF man."

Well, sort of. There comes the second detail, they didn't have an indefinite article. Just definite or nothing. So while in English you could have something like "son of man", "a son of a man" or "the son of the man", the first is actually how they'd say the second there. A definite article on noun2 makes the whole thing definite. And in fact is how you do that.

Which is why I thought it hilarious when *ahem* someone back then claimed that Jesus claimed the "Son Of Man" title, which was some kind of supreme religious title. Uh, no. It wasn't even a definite thing. It meant "a son of a man", and was a common kenning for "man".

But I digress. Sorta. Almost.

My point is that:

A) If you wanted to say "home of Naza", you'd have to put the "beth" first. Otherwise it's "Naza of house." (Whatever a Naza may be.)

And

B) you'd need a definite article in there if it's about THE Naza, as opposed to some Naza.

Also,

C) IMHO if you want a Naza in there, or something that might have been mis-translated that way by a Greek, I would rather suggest Nazir, as in "holy", "consecrated", or pretty much someone who took a vow and was all holy and crap. Better known in English as a Nazirite.

Alternately, Netser, meaning "branch"

 

[barehl]

The whole Exodus story - 500,000 men with their wives, children and servants wandering for 40 years (*) through the Sinai - has of course never been vindicated by archaeological finds.

I agree. I believe it's only about 500 miles from Cairo to Damascus. So, even a leisurely pace of 10 miles per day would get you there in less than two months. Even if they only traveled six months out of the year they still would have ended up retracing their steps over a hundred times. Nothing about this claim makes sense.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, it's even worse. It's not just the raw numbers, it's that that's somewhere between 5 and 10% of the world population at the time, and a lot more of the population of the whole Middle East.

It's actually three times the WHOLE Greek-speaking population in the 8'th century BCE, INCLUDING Greece proper, the Black Sea colonies, Asia Minor, etc. It's about equal to the whole population of Greece during the Golden Age of Pericles.

It's half the frikken population of Italy around the time of the Punic Wars.

Etc.

You can probably see where I'm going with this. Think of the kind of archaeological evidence THOSE left us. Now think what evidence we should be seeing from a Jewish migration THAT size.

 

[ArchSas]

As a field, "Biblical archaeology" is a mixed bag. Some are genuine, scientifically-minded archaeologists who are studying the cultural context of the Biblical world. Others are born-again ministers who go out and decided that Tel So-and-So is actually the ruins of the tower of Babel, or that a piece of wood found in Turkey is part of Noah's Ark.

There is science to be found, but it's mired in ********.

As an archaeology student who's had to write some papers about biblical archaeology, this is pretty much accurate. However, people shouldn't forget that even plenty of legitimate archaeologists take way too many biases into their studies, and, because that was the norm for so long, most literature you find relating to the archaeology of the area basically just repeats the biblical narrative.

As more progressive archaeologists (in other words, people who think their research doesn't support biblical history) take over the field, this has started to change, but it's still largely the case. Essentially, there's basically a huge split among scholarship, with a gradual shifting towards the viewpoint that the bible can't be taken seriously as a source of historical information.