by 5go 65 Replies latest watchtower bible
Just watched the naked archeaologist on the history channel and there still is a healthy debate over it . There are more sorces than just what finklestein has to say. Lot's of digging still going on .
That is the same guy behind decoding the exodus. Sorry but his work does not impress me any more. He is very biased toward judism and the bible's viewpoint.
I think some here are confused. I did not their wasn't a kingdom of Israel; just not of David, and Solomon; the latter King Solomon being purely mythical.
Their was two sematic kingdoms a northern one established first. Which was Assyrian like and most likely formed as a vassal state of the Assyrians. Then a southern one that probaly seperated from the north later. Which might of been written in the bible the other way around, to make the southern kingdom look more legitament in the eyes of the reader.
The archaeological record can only tell you so much of the story that has to be interpreted and supplemented by historical detail. So looking at the archaeological evidence and deciding what did or did not happen historically is a stretch. Archaeology only provides the outline. But notably in that case, archaeologists pick and choose to ignore various aspects of their own findings. Now I think it might be reasonable to presume Solomon was "mythical" if he appears 60 years earlier than the archaeological evidence of the buildings he built establishes. But the point here is that that dating is not the strict Biblical dating. The Bible only gives Darius I a 6-year rule, for instance (Ezra 6:14,15). If that is simply preposterous, then fine. Let the Bible contradict the Persian archaeology to the contrary. But to ignore the problems from the Persian Period, ignore the Biblical chronology that dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE and thus projects a later dating for Solomon, and then come up with a piggy-backed date from the defective Assyrian chronology to misdate Solomon is no argument. You can't claim that the Bible writers are at fault here or invented Solomon. If you are going to bash the Bible historians, then do so, but bashing misrepresented chronology just makes for stupidity. At the very least, Finkelstein and others should have done like Olof Jonsson does, and acknowledged other Biblical timelines. Having noted that, again, it is sufficient that any Biblical timeline that places Solomon 50-60 years later proves that Solomon was a real character and the buildings that have been found supports the state of Israel as it was in this great era. The second thing that is challenging with your statement is Shishak's inscription. He records conquering over 100 cities, which we presume were significant since he also conquered Jezreel and didn't mention it. That inscription shows you how prominent Canaan was in the hands of the United Kingdom at the time. The attack was against Rehoboam while Jeroboam was still in Egypt and also while Solomon was still ruling. Thus Shishak's inscription agrees completely with the Bible. The RC14 dating from Rehov confirms this happened in c. 871 BCE as well, something archaeologists can't embrace because that late date for Sishak is too close to the FIXED chronology of the Assyrian Period showing the battle of Karkar occurring in 853BCE, just 18 years later. So how do they handle the dilemma? They ignore ALL the evidence that this is related to Shishak at all, including a stele found from Shishak himself at Megiddo and try to claim this destructive level happened 40 years later at a the earliest time available in the revised timeline that they can justify it. Thus the RC14 dating, as advanced and specific as it is, is ignored. So there is just INCOMPETENCE wherever you look! That's why it doesn't affect the faith of those who believe the Bible. We're smart enough, having established our own timeline to make our own comparisons with the actual well-established archaeological and RC14 timeline. We know the WTS' dating is 127 years too early and thus ridiculous and the secular timeline likewise is 54 years too early. Further, we have a basis for redating the secular timeline via moving the eclipse from the Assyrian Period from 763 BCE to 709BCE. Finkelstein lacks the expertise in that area to defend it. Likewise, it is not difficult to remove 56 years from the Greek Period, which is entirely based upon a couple Greek historians, who are dismissed right and left anyway (i.e. Herodotus is called both the "father of history" and "the father of lies.") But thanks for posting this information, it's fun to see the archaeologists running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to figure out what is wrong with the timeline, at the same time enjoying their Solomon bashing dated to a non-Biblical date for Solomon. It's a joke. JC
Ok JC will go over exodus again to show you why it totally dismissed much like genesis by the scientific community.
I'll start a thread on it tommorow assuming something better doesn't come up.
Okay 5go, be my guest. But there is no way to TOTALLY dismiss the Exodus. That's because Akhenaten, the king who followed Amenhotep III on the throne, the extra-Biblical historical king of the Exodus converted to monotheism and suppressed the false gods of Egypt immediately after the Exodus occurred. That's evidence enough that the Ten Plagues occurred. Furthter there are Amarna letters that suggested Amenhotep III died with many others in some kind of a punishment. There is Amarna letter evidence that gold became scarce during the reign of Akhenaten. There is evidence that Akhenaten did not provide military support for many Canaanite kings who were now being ravaged, which is compatible with the primary Egyptian chariot fleet being destroyed in the Red Sea, etc. So there is no way you can TOTALLY dismiss the Exodus. Plus the Exodus is mentioned historically by Manetho as occurring at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III. So I hope in your commentary you know that any scenario of the Exodus occurring at any other time than at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III is IRRELEVANT. You must dismiss the Exodus "totally" occurring at the end of the rule of Amenhotep III and not like the Solomonic mythical theory where the archaelogiss come up with their own Biblically inaccurate dating and then use that as evidence against the Bible. So ADVANCED WARNING here. The Biblical Exodus occurs specifically in 1386 BCE, which marks the 1st year of Akhenaten, the pharaoh who after experiencing the Ten Plagues converted to monotheistic worship of Yahweh as a result. We would then be looking for circumstantial evidence of the Exodus in the Egyptian culture and society at this time, with indications of the effect upon religion, the military since pharaoh's chariots were destroyed, any economic indicators since the Jews "stripped" the Egyptians of their gold at the time, etc. We can even consider evidence from the mummy of Amenhotep III who would have drowned rather violently in the Red Sea (i.e. condition of the body, age, cause of death, etc.). Simply proving there is no evidence of an Exodus during some earlier reign like Thuthmosis or much later during the reign of Rameses doesn't disprove there was an Exodus at the correct time which was at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III. Even I can be convinced there was no Exodus during the reigns of those two kings mentioned, so it proves nothing but the Exodus didn't happen during that time. Another KEY archaeological issue you need to deal with is the fall of Jericho specifically dated between 1350-1325BCE. That limits the archaeological scope for the dating of the Exodus based purely on archaeological findings. Kanthleen Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho by the Israelites quite specifically during this time, but she has little choice since this destructive level, the last before a period of 400 years of nonoccupation, sports cartouches from the reign of Amenhotep III, proving he had at least begun to reign before this final destruction takes place, with a higher probability of a period 25-40 years after his rule. So I there's no way you can "TOTALLY" disprove the Exodus. The Exodus is too well purchased at it's correct time historically and archaeologically. Thanks for your arguments though, it would be interesting where you stand on the topic. JC
Biblical 'Pharaohs'– Unknown to the Egyptians! | ||
So!
Shishak? Hophra? | Despite the omission of pharaonic names in Genesis, Exodus and most other biblical books, in a few places pharaohs are indeed named. This should have made it possible to synchronize the real history of Egypt with some part of the purported "history" of the Jews recorded in the Bible. Unfortunately there is a small problem: the Bible's 'Pharaohs' are unknown in all of the vast corpus of Egyptian history. Thus, 1 Kings (11.40) introduces the character "Shishak"; 2 Kings (17.4) brings on "So" ; and Jeremiah (44.30) gives us "Hophra." The anomaly has given rise to 200 years of "name that pharaoh." With many centuries, 30-odd dynasties, and dozens of monarchs to choose from the possibilities are endless. Jeroboam's "refuge" in Egypt: |
First there is no pharoah named Shishak. So there goes your argument.
Yup! There goes my argument.
Of course, even your pal Finkelstein uses "Shishak" in connection with Sheshonq, which matches his description of the invasion of Israel.
If that's the best you have, then, I guess you WIN! Enjoy your victory.
JC
Supposedly, an Israelite empire flourished in the 10th century BC, during a time of temporary weakness of both Assyria and Egypt. Yet the fabled empire of David and Solomon remains just that: a fable, unsupported by any evidence – and empires normally leave a great deal of evidence.
The so-called 'United Monarchy' is found only in the Bible. The 'empire' has no monuments, no inscriptions and no artifacts. Neither David nor Solomon is as much as mentioned in the huge corpus of state records of either Egypt or Assyria. Concedes a 'pro-imperial Israel' historian:
"Solomon ... in the eyes of Israelite historians, marked the apex of Israelite achievement. Curiously, no reference to him or his father David, or their empire in a non-Israelite source is known... "
(Isserlin, The Israelites, p72)But of course there is nothing 'curious' about a non-existent 'empire' (stretching 'from the Euphrates to Egypt') leaving no evidence of its non-existence. Modern Israel is peppered with 'Solomon's monuments' – but not one of them has any genuine claim to the appellation.
There is plenty of evidence. Including "monumental" buildings and palaces made out of ashlar blocks that indicate "full statehood" according to Finkelstein as I quote above. The PROBLEM is that when the Greek Period revisions are superimposed on the entire timelime, then David and Solomon get displaced and then the not-so-smart scholars claim there is "no evidence" of the empire, when in fact there is plenty. All the cities listed by Sheshonq testifies to a vibrant era in Israel. The Bible dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE, the Exodus thus to 1386BCE and Solomon's rule from 910-870BCE. Those are the BIBLICAL DATES that need to be compared archaeologically, not the defective dates from the revised NB timeline. The above is just another example of misinformation by scholars.
JC
There is plenty of evidence. Including "monumental" buildings and palaces made out of ashlar blocks that indicate "full statehood" according to Finkelstein as I quote above. The PROBLEM is that when the Greek Period revisions are superimposed on the entire timelime, then David and Solomon get displaced and then the not-so-smart scholars claim there is "no evidence" of the empire, when in fact there is plenty. All the cities listed by Sheshonq testifies to a vibrant era in Israel. The Bible dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE, the Exodus thus to 1386BCE and Solomon's rule from 910-870BCE. Those are the BIBLICAL DATES that need to be compared archaeologically, not the defective dates from the revised NB timeline. The above is just another example of misinformation by scholars.
No there is no evidence of a Israeli Empire ever. There isn't much evidence even support a kingdom proper at the time of David and Solomon. There is evidence of tribes and villages in the area at the time. That is about it though. Most of the evidence you are talking about has been disproved over time because, when assesed in the greater picture of the world at the time they did not fit. Even the House of David insciption has been rethought. When you analyse the artifacts from a outside perspective you see why they change their mind on these things.
No there is no evidence of a Israeli Empire ever. There isn't much evidence even support a kingdom proper at the time of David and Solomon. There is evidence of tribes and villages in the area at the time. That is about it though. Most of the evidence you are talking about has been disproved over time because, when assesed in the greater picture of the world at the time they did not fit. Even the House of David insciption has been rethought. When you analyse the artifacts from a outside perspective you see why they change their mind on these things.
Ahhh, an anti-Biblical COMEDIAN! You wanted to make me laugh today, right? Well ya got me!
You're just misinformed here, and I already quoted from FINKESTEIN on this issue, so will do so again. In "The Bible Unearthed", page 142:
"Essentially, archaeology misdated boht "Davidic" and "Solomnic" remains by a full century. The finds dated to the time just before David in the late eleventh century belonged in the mid-tenth century and those dated to the time of Solomon belonged in the early ninth century BCE. the new dates place the appearance of MONUMENTAL STRUCTURES, FORTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER SIGNS OF FULL STATEHOOD precisely at the time of their first appearance in the rest of the Levant."
Did you note that? "Signs of full statehood." So the ashlar block palaces that were found and other major structures, like a palace built at Megiddo and another at Jezreel, clearly shows the opulence of the time. It's as if every little prince or chieftan had their own palace during this period of time. In case you didn't catch on, large "monumental structures" take a large organized state to complete this type of building work, a strong central administration. Small towns can't afford on their own to build like this.
Listen to how Finkelstein describes the palace at Samaria on page 181: "The scale of this project was enormous... A royal acropolis of five acres was thus created. This huge stone and earth construction can be compared in AUDACITY and EXTRAVAGANCE (though perhaps not in size) only to the work that Herod the Great carried out almost a millennium later on theTemple Mount in Jerusalem. Rising on one side of this artificial platform was an exceptionally large and beautiful palace, which in scale and grandeur rivaled the contemporary palaces of the states in northern Syria... With its outer walls built entirely of finely hewn and closely fitted ashlar stones, it is the largest and most beautiful Iron Age building ever excavated in Israel. Even the architectural ornamentation was exceptional..."
Now what was it that you said? "No there is no evidence of a Israeli Empire ever. "
So you see, you're OUT OF TOUCH, just posting all kinds of stuff you haven't bothered to really understand yourself. Basically, as I said, it is not that there was never thought to be a great empire in Israel. They recognize a time of opulence and greatness in Israel, only by the current dating, they ascribe it to Omri, not Solomon. Finkelstein thus puts forth arguments as to why the Jews moved the greatness of Omri back to the time of Solomon. Thus we are not dealing with no evidence of greatness in Israel, just a displaced time for that greatness.
My contention is that since I know the Greeks added 56 years to their chronology which has impacted upon a 54-56 year distorion all the way back to David and Solomon and even back to the Exodus period, that the claims of revisionism is unfounded since the Bible's true dating based upon 455BCE for the 1st of Cyrus would date the rule of Solomon where the archaeologists using defective chronology are now currently dating the time of Omri. So Finkelstein is not saying there "is not evidence of a Israeli Empire ever", only that it occurs during the time of Omri, not Solomon. That is, they place it in the early 9th century BCE. Omri's rule ends in 870. But when you use the Biblical dating based upon 455BCE, the end of Solomon's rule ends in 870BCE; his rule per the Bible is dated from 910-870BCE, specifically. So you see, Solomon should get credit for the building work they have found and dated for this period. The archaeologists are coming to false conclusions because they don't realize that their timeline is linked to the Greek Period revisions. Same story: Junk-in-junk-out! Their current secular timeline is the weak link in their conclusions.
When you use the Bible's own timeline, however, Solomon appears at the time of Israel's great building period and confirms what the Bible says. Even the RC14 dating matches the end of Solomon's rule in 871BCE!
As you can see from the chart below, the current 925 BCE dating for Shishak's invasion doesn't match the RC14 dating! The Bible dates Shishak's invasion c. 871BCE in the 39th year of Solomon.
I appreciate you posting this stuff 5go, but you actually have to read it yourself before you decide to comment blindly and irresponsibly, right? That's why we Biblicalists don't even pay attention to some of these arguments because you folks don't even read or know your own arguments some of the time.
Thanks.
JC
I appreciate you posting this stuff 5go, but you actually have to read it yourself before you decide to comment blindly and irresponsibly, right? That's why we Biblicalists don't even pay attention to some of these arguments because you folks don't even read or know your own arguments some of the time.
Thanks.
JC
"The archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent.19th and early 20th century excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem failed to identify even a trace of Solomon's fabled Temple or palace complex."(Finkelstein, Silberman, p128) |
In contrast to its heroics and intrigues of "King David", the Bible avoids mentioning Aram's 9th century conquest of much of Israel:
"Around 835 and 800 BC the kingdom of Aram-Damascus controlled the upper Jordan valley and significant areas in northeastern Israel – and devastated major Israelite administrative centres in the fertile Jezreel valley as well."(Finkelstein, Silberman, p202)Dan, Hazor, Jezreel and Megiddo were among the cities destroyed.
The Jews were always screwing up and so God sent other nations to pillage and punish them. But as far as the above statement goes, it is another example of the incompetence of Finkelstein because of the revised timeline. You see, Megiddo's destruction theory by Finkelstein comes only after it is clear that 925BCE as destroyed by Shishak (Sheshonq) doesn't work based upon the archaeology and RC14 dating that points to a later date. So after clearly established the Solomonic palacial level at Megiddo with other cities destroyed at this time, including Jezeel and Rehov, he comes up with a theory of their destruction by Aram. But that is entirely conjecture. Why? Because the RC14 dating is so specific about when these cities were destroyed around 871 BCE, that it doesn't work for the FIXED chronology of the Assyrian Period, which places the battle of Karkar in 853 BC just 18 years after the fall of these cities. So Finkelstein must ignore the RC14 dating evidence and move completely to the fixed dating timeline which at the earliest would show the rise of Aram_Damascus, which they don't use RC14 dating for but the fixed and erroneous timline of the Assyrian Period based upon the 763BCE eclipse instead of the 709BCE eclipse. Thus he abandons the idea entirely that Shishak destroyed this level at Megiddo and Rehov, etc. But this just demonstrates the incompetence based upon the false dating. The truth is, that 871BCE is precisely the dating for the fall of these cities by Shishak, per the Bible and the corrected chronology when you remove the fake Persian and Greek years from the timeline.
Here is his quote on this from his book "The Bible Unearthed" page 142:
"Finally, a series of samples from the destruction of a stratum at Tel Rehov near Bethshean, which is comtemporary with Megiddo's supposed Solomnic city, gave mid-ninth dates--long after its reported destruction by Pharaoh Shishak in 926 BCE." And on page 343: "The surprise was that the pottery found in the Jezreel enclosure is identical to the pottery of the city of palaces at Megiddo. But the latter was suposed to have been destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak almost a century earlier! How can we bridge this gap?... The city of ashlar palaces at Megiddo was destroyed in the mid-ninth century, probably by Hazael, and not in 926 BCE by Shishak."
Please note "mid-ninth century" is a complete stretch! 835BC isn't what I'd call "mid-ninth century" especially compared to the specific RC14 dating from Rehov for that destructive layer which is also called "mid-ninth century" (i.e. c. 850 BCE) since the clear peak of highest probability dating for Rehov which falls within a 7-year period is from 874-867BCE! So the 835BCE dating for the fall of Megiddo ignores this scientific data!!
So in other words, if you change the 763BCE misdated eclipse from the Assyrian Period to 709BCE, its original correcte date theoretically, then it moves the Shishak destroyed level now dated to 926 BCE down 54 years to 872 BCE, which as you can see falls within the scientifically best confirmation for when this city was destroyed. Thus the science confirms the 709BCE eclipse dating for Shishak's invasion and not the 763BCE dating. You have harmony between corrected secular dating and the archaeological scientific evidence available. At this point, we compare that to the best Biblical timeline, which is based upon 455BCE for the 1st of Cyrus, which in turn dates the Exodus to 1386BCE (19 jubilees earlier = 931 years earlier = 19 x 49), which in turn dates the 4th of Solomon to 906BCE and his 40-year thus from 910-870BCE. Shishak's invasion occurs near the very end of his reign during the 6-year co-rulership between he and his son Rehoboam, and thus c. 872-870BC, which falls within the highest relative probability dating found at Rehov. Therefore, Finkelstein's assessment about Aram-Damascus conquering all this region is a total JOKE and only reflects the problems with the fixed misdating of the Assyrian Period. There indeed was a massive destructive level of this region c. 871BCE but it was by Shishak, not Aram-Damascus. The above conclusion by Finkelstein thus simply represents his best compromise since he could not effectively downdate Shishak from 926BCE to 871BCE, which is where the RC14 dating from Rehov is pointing. But because that is still too close to Shalmaneser III and Hazael wasn't really on the scene then, he has to ignore this dating pointing to 872-874BCE, which he only loosely called "MID-9TH CENTER" and push it all the way to 835BCE. At the very best you could describe the Rehov dating as "early mid 9th century" yet Finkelstein is pushing this to "late mid 9th century" when he moves this event to 835BCE. But because it does not match the scientific dating and we understand WHY it doesn't because of the defective timeline Finkelstein is moving, we can dismiss this presumption by Finkelstein as completely erroneous. That is, it is not based on any archaeological findings that these cities were destroyed by Aram-Damascus rather than Shishak. All the evidence otherwise points to Shishak, even an inscription stele they found at Megiddo that he destroyed the city. His conclusions are purely based upon the few choices he has left to harmonize history with the archaeology here. But he can't do that without stretching the best dating indicators for when this happened.
On the other hand, when you change the timeline in line with the 709BCE eclipse, then the clear archaeological evidence linking Shishak to this destructive level can remain in place for destruction c. 871BCE. So when you make the correction, you have coorelation between science, archaeology and the Bible! Finkelstein cannot overturn that cross-confirmation.
But this is precisely why we Biblicalists like Finkelstein so much but consider him a "light weight" as far as history goes since he did have a choice to use all this archaeological evidence to simply date Shishak's invasion to c. 871BCE and start challenging the Assyrian chronology. But instead, he cops out to the historical timeline and ignores the archaeological evidence, discrediting his conclusions entirely.
Now as far as the statement below goes, this is entirely about JERUSALEM! It is talking about the famous buildings of Solomon or evidence of their remains not being found at JERUSALEM, only! As noted above, the monumental and grand palaces were found in other cities that indicate a "full statehood" administration. So Jerusalem contrasts to the other evidence found because they didn't find evidence there...
"The archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent.
19th and early 20th century excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem failed to identify even a trace of Solomon's fabled Temple or palace complex."
(Finkelstein, Silberman, p128)
However, this argument that there was no evidence of these buildings there is circular. That's because, if a city is completely razed down to the foundation and the rebuilding starts on a previous level, then you won't find any evidence for that level.
In other words, sometimes a city will tell a great historical story. You'll have a mound or "Tel" that develops because every time the city is destroyed, it is covered over and they build on top of that. So when archaeologists dig down through the various layers, they can see an archaeological history for the different levels. But when you get to a city like Jerusalem, which is quite ancient, and those restoring the city after the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, dig down to the original foundation, instead of covering over and building on top of the ruins, then you don't have evidence for an entire period. It's as if the archaeology jumps from the earlier era to the late era. So all the archaeology establishes for Jerusalem is either, as they say, (a) there is no evidence found and thus we presume the palaces were not built there by Solomon as per the Bible, or (b) all the building evidence was removed from that layer entirely, the latter city being built on an earlier foundation. So "no evidence" doesn't prove the palaces were never there, only that they were completely destroyed and all the stones and evidence from that destructive layer removed and reused or completely discarded. If the post-exilic rebuilders decided to raze the city down and start at a previous foundation level, then you wouldn't find the evidence available. But every archaeologist knows that.
So in this case, there is only cautionary interest in what we find at Jerusalem from the period of Solomon, but we put that into the setting of the other monumental palaces found say at Jezreel and Megiddo and other places, which clearly shows there was a great state of Israel in operation, a state that we know had its capital at Jerusalem. Conclusion would be, therefore, that Jerusalem was just destroyed more thoroughly than these other cities so you have less actual evidence at Jerusalem than at other places. In addition, the destruction of the palaces of Solomon were destroyed not by Sishak but by Nebuchadnezzar, who might have been more thorough in destroying the city and pulling down its walls. Remember, a lot of these buildings were incorporated into the wall and the land filled up behind the wall. If the walls were destroyed then that would wipe out that entire level!
So every city has its own story and some cities apparently like Jerusalem or cities build on a rock foundation like Tyre don't turn into the usual tel like you find with other cities, so some historical layers are completely missing. No evidence of Solomon's temple or other buildigns simply attests to the complete destruction of those buildings and the rebuilding work begun after the complete removal of that layer.
So you have nothing here but an archaeologists trying to be anti-Biblical but not doing that effectively. He's his own worst enemy the more details he provides.
Thanks, again for the references. But I'M DONE HERE! (or I should say YOU and Finkelstein are done here!)
JC
