King David Of Israel

[beingofone]

I will fix it as soon as I can. In order to play someone else just set the Israeli,Benj. and Jud. units at nil for obsolete except David and Joab.

[lord of the mark]

for an alternative approach to the David story, you might look at the one Age of Empires user campaign on that theme. Dont remember the designer, its at AOE heaven, and was excellent. It was more RPGish, focusing on the early years, but might give you ideas.

For some material on the military technology of the era, Id suggest the book "the end of the Bronze age" excellent on the decline of chariots, the rise of iron age infantry, etc. to see these ideas implemented in a civ scenario look at Cullivans "Ancient Empires", and his "end of the Bronze Age" Look also at the tech descriptions i wrote for the latest version of Ancient Empires.


For the bible and history, you could look at "who wrote the Bible" (i forget the author) Its all pretty murky, and one revisionist counters another these days. While theres apparently a lot of question of the David and Solomon stories (since theres SO much less detail for the immediately subsequent reigns, and it COULD have been propaganda for the Judean dynasty) theres not really any better sources, IIRC, and theres counter evidence from archaelogy (Yadins disputed claim that city walls in Hazor and elsewhere confirm biblical claims for Solomonic acts)


Id really like to see Egypt play - as a militarily weak power, but with diplomatic influence.

[beingofone]

for an alternative approach to the David story, you might look at the one Age of Empires user campaign on that theme. Dont remember the designer, its at AOE heaven, and was excellent. It was more RPGish, focusing on the early years, but might give you ideas.

Thank you for the tip- I don`t have AOE - I prefer turn based games but sounds cool. Take a look at "Chariots of War" by Slitherine games.

For some material on the military technology of the era, Id suggest the book "the end of the Bronze age" excellent on the decline of chariots, the rise of iron age infantry, etc. to see these ideas implemented in a civ scenario look at Cullivans "Ancient Empires", and his "end of the Bronze Age" Look also at the tech descriptions i wrote for the latest version of Ancient Empires.

I have looked this book over, it is indeed superb.Since this scenario runs a mere 33 years unlike Seeds 3200 years it is difficult to include the same tech tree. I do think the tech tree for Ancient Empires was genius. I will look at the latest version. I am on the road and it is almost impossible to make adjustments to the scenario.

Id really like to see Egypt play - as a militarily weak power, but with diplomatic influence.

I think you might be right - I might have lumped Ammon and Moab together and formed Egypt.

For the bible and history, you could look at "who wrote the Bible" (i forget the author) Its all pretty murky, and one revisionist counters another these days. While theres apparently a lot of question of the David and Solomon stories (since theres SO much less detail for the immediately subsequent reigns, and it COULD have been propaganda for the Judean dynasty) theres not really any better sources, IIRC, and theres counter evidence from archaelogy (Yadins disputed claim that city walls in Hazor and elsewhere confirm biblical claims for Solomonic acts)

Richard E. Friedman wrote "Who wrote the Bible". These critics begin the research they do with an assumption,and regardless of the facts they try to prove an agenda that they already begin with.
I will post just a small bit of research I have done. In all fairness I do read and study both sides of the debate. I read critics as well as supporters of the Biblical account of history.

Chariots

[beingofone]

Textual geneology- This does not apply when working with scripture because the manuscripts were copied. We have the most validating evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Included in this find was an intact scroll of the book of Isaiah and almost the entire Old Testament dated 125 B.C.
It is word for word the same as the Massoretic text dated 916 A.D.

Textual criticism- Opinion on the dating- circular reasoning. example- "We know that the city of Rome could not support 1 million people, because I do not happen to believe they had the ability to do so. Therefore the text must be wrong or the date is much later. " The least reliable form of dating.

There are 40 kings listed in scripture dating from 2000- 400 B.C. in chronological order. Most of these kings are mentioned in other ancient texts. According to Robert Wilson (scientist) the odds of this occuring are 1 in 750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Wilson adds "The proof that the copies of the original documents have been handed down with correctness for more than 2000 years cannot be denied. It is not merely possible, but as we have shown, is rendered probable by the analogies of Babylonian documents now existing of which we have both originals and copies, thousands of years apart, and of scores of papryi show when compared only minor changes. These differences are attributed to proper spelling, modern rendering of names of kings and foreign terms."
"In 144 cases of transliteration from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Moabite into Hebrew. 40 cases of the opposite, the evidence shows that for 2300 to 3900 years the text in the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with the most minute accuracy."

Ref.A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament

Extra Biblical Authors who quoted scripture As History

Clement of Rome 96 A.D.
Flavious Josephus- 70 A.D.
Ignatious- 70-110 A.D.
Polycarp- 70-156 A.D.
Irenaeus- 156 A.D.
Tatian- 170 A.D.

Archaeoligists

Nelson Glueck- renowned Jewish archaeoligist " It may be stated categorically that no archaeoligical discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. The almost incredible accurate historical memory of the Bible is fortified by archaeological fact."

William F. Albright - one of the greatest archaeoligists "There can be no doubt that achaeology has confirmed the historical record of the Old Testament. The excessive criticism shown tword the Bible by important historical schools, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details,and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Professer H.H. Rowley- " It is not because scholars of today begin with the more conservative supposition than their predecessors that they have a much greater respect for the Patriarachal stories, but because the evidence warrants it."

Millar Burrows of Yale- archaeologist " Archaeology has refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown that these views are based on false assumptions."
"The excessive scepticism stems not from a carful examination of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."
"Archaeology on the whole has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record."

Merrill Unger- archaeoligist " Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner has filled in historical gaps."

Archaeological Finds


Jeremiah 32. 9. "And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle's son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. 14.Take these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both which is sealed, and this evidence which is open; and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days."
They located the land near the same location as mentioned. They dug and wonder of wonders Jeremiahs seal in a wine jar. The papyrus was dated before 100 B.C.

Hundreds of cities excavated confirm the text of the Old Testament concerning there location.

Bronze mirrors were doubted because of "textual criticism" by Julias Wellhausen and others. I.E did not have the ability to make them when the Bible said they could. They found some in Egypt dated 1500-1200 B.C. That confirms the Old Testament dating of Moses and the exodus.

Hittite capital excavated- Prior to the late 19th century, nothing was known of the Hittites outside the Bible, and many critics alleged that they were an invention of the biblical authors. In 1876 a dramatic discovery changed this perception. A British scholar named A. H. Sayce found inscriptions carved on rocks in Turkey.more clay tablets were found in Turkey at a place called Boghaz-koy. German cuneiform expert Hugo Winckler investigated the tablets and began his own expedition at the site in 1906.Winckler's excavations uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel and several massive sculptures. In one storeroom he found over ten thousand clay tablets. One of the documents proved to be a record of a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite king. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-koy was the capital of the Hittite kingdom. Its original name was Hattusha and the city covered an area of 300 acres. The Hittite nation had been discovered!

Critics once criticized the laws and instructions found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as too complicated for the time it was written (1400 B.C.). The Boghaz-koy texts along with others from Egyptian sites and a site along the Euphrates called Emar have proven that the ceremonies described in the Jewish Pentateuch are consistent with the ceremonies of the cultures of this time period.

Nuzo and Mari digs- Mosaic legislation was seen in Hittite, Assyrian and Sumerian codes. Albright- "This is a contribution before which everything else must fade."


The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been viewed as a legend. Critics assume that it was created to communicate moral principles.
More digging was done in 1965, 1967, and 1973. The archaeologists discovered a 23-inch thick wall around the city, along with numerous houses and a large temple. Outside the city were huge grave sites where thousands of skeletons were unearthed. This revealed that the city had been well populated during the early Bronze Age, about the time Abraham would have lived.

Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.

Dr. Bryant Wood, in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, "The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom."

Five cities of the plain are mentioned in Genesis 14: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoar, and Zeboiim. Remnants of these other four cities are also found along the Dead Sea. Following a southward path from Bab edh-Drha there is the city called Numeria. Continuing south is the city called es-Safi. Further south are the ancient cities of Feifa and Khanazir. Studies at these cities revealed that they had been abandoned at the same time about 2450–2350 B.C. Many archaeologists believe if Bab ed-Drha is Sodom, Numeria is Gomorrah, and es-Safi is Zoar.

What fascinated the archaeologists is that these cities were covered in the same ash as Bab ed-Drha. Numeria, believed to be Gomorrah, had seven feet of ash in some places. In every one of the destroyed cities ash deposits made the soil a spongy charcoal, making it impossible to rebuild. According to the Bible, four of the five cities were destroyed, leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. Zoar was not destroyed by fire, but was abandoned during this period.

Although archaeologists are still disputing these findings, this is one discovery we will be hearing more about in years to come.

The Walls of Jericho
According to the Bible, the conquest of Jericho occurred in approximately 1440 B.C. The miraculous nature of the conquest has caused some scholars to dismiss the story as folklore. Does archaeology support the biblical account? Over the past century four prominent archaeologists have excavated the site: Carl Watzinger from 1907-1909, John Garstang in the 1930's, Kathleen Kenyon from 1952-1958, and currently Bryant Wood. The result of their work has been remarkable.

First, they discovered that Jericho had an impressive system of fortifications. Surrounding the city was a retaining wall fifteen feet high. At its top was an eight-foot brick wall strengthened from behind by an earthen rampart. Domestic structures were found behind this first wall. Another brick wall enclosed the rest of the city. The domestic structures found between the two walls is consistent with Joshua's description of Rahab's quarters (Josh. 2:15). Archeologists also found that in one part of the city, large piles of bricks were found at the base of both the inner and outer walls, indicating a sudden collapse of the fortifications. Scholars feel that an earthquake, which may also explain the damming of the Jordan in the biblical account, caused this collapse. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader might easily enter the city (Josh. 6:20).

During the excavations of Jericho 1930-36,Garstang in charge of the dig."As to the main fact that the walls fell outwards, there is no doubt, so completely so that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins"- The walls of cities always fall inwards- Hmmm


Of this amazing discovery Garstang states, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely, the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins of the city."{6} This is remarkable because when attacked city walls fall inward, not outward.

A thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire as described in Joshua 6:24. Kenyon describes it this way. "The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire and every room was filled with fallen bricks." Archaeologists also discovered large amounts of grain at the site. This is again consistent with the biblical account that the city was captured quickly. If it had fallen as a result of a siege, the grain would have been used up. According to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but had to destroy it totally.

Although the archaeologists agreed Jericho was violently destroyed, they disagreed on the date of the conquest. Garstang held to the biblical date of 1400 B.C. while Watzinger and Kenyon believed the destruction occurred in 1550 B.C. In other words, if the later date is accurate, Joshua arrived at a previously destroyed Jericho. This earlier date would pose a serious challenge to the historicity of the Old Testament.

Dr. Bryant Wood, who is currently excavating the site, found that Kenyon's early date was based on faulty assumptions about pottery found at the site. His later date is also based on the discovery of Egyptian amulets in the tombs northwest of Jericho. Inscribed under these amulets were the names of Egyptian Pharaohs dating from 1500-1386 B.C., showing that the cemetery was in use up to the end of the late Bronze Age (1550-1400 B.C.). Finally, a piece of charcoal found in the debris was carbon-14 dated to be 1410 B.C. The evidence leads Wood to this conclusion. "The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of the Late Bronze Age, about 1400 BCE."

Thus, current archeological evidence supports the Bible's account of when and how Jericho fell.

House of David
One of the most beloved characters in the Bible is King David. Scripture says that he was a man after God's own heart. He is revered as the greatest of all Israelite kings and the messianic covenant is established through his lineage. Despite his key role in Israel's history, until recently no evidence outside the Bible attested to his existence. For this reason critics questioned the existence of a King David.

In the summer of 1993, an archaeologist made what has been labeled as a phenomenal and stunning discovery. Dr. Avraham Biran and his team were excavating a site labeled Tell Dan, located in northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon. Evidence indicates that this is the site of the Old Testament land of Dan.

The team had discovered an impressive royal plaza. As they were clearing the debris, they discovered in the ruins the remains of a black basalt stele, or stone slab, containing Aramaic inscriptions. The stele contained thirteen lines of writing but none of the sentences were complete. Some of the lines contained only three letters while the widest contained fourteen. The letters that remained were clearly engraved and easy to read. Two of the lines included the phrases "The King of Israel" and "House of David."

This is the first reference to King David found outside of the Bible. This discovery has caused many critics to reconsider their view of the historicity of the Davidic kingdom. Pottery found in the vicinity, along with the construction and style of writing, lead Dr. Biran to argue that the stele was erected in the first quarter of the ninth century B.C., about a century after the death of King David. Three more references to David have been found since the first in and thru the 90`s.

The translation team discovered that the inscription told of warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans, which the Bible refers to during this period. In this find, a ruler of the Arameans probably Hazael is victorious over Israel and Judah. The stele was erected to celebrate the defeat of the two kings. In 1994 two more pieces were found with inscriptions which refer to Jehoram, the son of Ahab, ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah, who was the ruler over the "House of David" or Judah. These names and facts correspond to the account given in chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Kings. Dr. Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeological Review states, "The stele brings to life the biblical text in a very dramatic way. It also gives us more confidence in the historical reality of the biblical text."

The find has confirmed a number of facts. First, the use of the term "House of David" implies that there was a Davidic dynasty that ruled Israel. We can conclude, then, that a historic King David existed. Second, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were prominent political entities as the Bible describes. Critics long viewed the two nations as simply insignificant states.

Dr. Bryant Wood summarizes the importance of this find this way. "In our day, most scholars, archaeologist and biblical scholars would take a very critical view of the historical accuracy of many of the accounts in the Bible. . . . Many scholars have said there never was a David or a Solomon, and now we have a stele that actually mentions David."

Over and over the only true critisicm of the scriptural account is - "I simply dont want to believe it regardless of the facts"
Simply show me 1 single find that disproves the Biblical account without opinion or conjecture. It has yet to be done.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by beingofone

Textual geneology- This does not apply when working with scripture because the manuscripts were copied. We have the most validating evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Included in this find was an intact scroll of the book of Isaiah and almost the entire Old Testament dated 125 B.C.
It is word for word the same as the Massoretic text dated 916 A.D.

My recollection of what ive read about the DSS bible texts is that they included elements compatiable with the Masoretic, Septuagint AND Samaritan readings.

In any case, even if all "OT" material were identical with Masoretic texts, this would only tell us that the Masorectic tradition is the right one for the post Exilic text, NOT the date of origin of the text.

Textual criticism- Opinion on the dating- circular reasoning. example- "We know that the city of Rome could not support 1 million people, because I do not happen to believe they had the ability to do so. Therefore the text must be wrong or the date is much later. " The least reliable form of dating.

theres much more sophisticated criticisms than this. Though none are incontrovertible proof.

There are 40 kings listed in scripture dating from 2000- 400 B.C. in chronological order. Most of these kings are mentioned in other ancient texts. According to Robert Wilson (scientist) the odds of this occuring are 1 in 750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

how many of the 40 are pre, say 900 BCE? Or even take a Wellhausen type hypothesis of much later composition. You would only apply the above math to kings named EARLIER than the proposed composition date. And IIUC the current state of the art is that the composition, oral or otherwise, is much earlier than the classical doc hypothesis.

Wilson adds "The proof that the copies of the original documents have been handed down with correctness for more than 2000 years cannot be denied. It is not merely possible, but as we have shown, is rendered probable by the analogies of Babylonian documents now existing of which we have both originals and copies, thousands of years apart, and of scores of papryi show when compared only minor changes. These differences are attributed to proper spelling, modern rendering of names of kings and foreign terms."
"In 144 cases of transliteration from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Moabite into Hebrew. 40 cases of the opposite, the evidence shows that for 2300 to 3900 years the text in the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with the most minute accuracy."

Ref.A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament

Extra Biblical Authors who quoted scripture As History

Clement of Rome 96 A.D.
Flavious Josephus- 70 A.D.
Ignatious- 70-110 A.D.
Polycarp- 70-156 A.D.
Irenaeus- 156 A.D.
Tatian- 170 A.D.


Archaeoligists

Nelson Glueck- renowned Jewish archaeoligist " It may be stated categorically that no archaeoligical discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. The almost incredible accurate historical memory of the Bible is fortified by archaeological fact."

William F. Albright - one of the greatest archaeoligists "There can be no doubt that achaeology has confirmed the historical record of the Old Testament. The excessive criticism shown tword the Bible by important historical schools, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details,and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Professer H.H. Rowley- " It is not because scholars of today begin with the more conservative supposition than their predecessors that they have a much greater respect for the Patriarachal stories, but because the evidence warrants it."

Millar Burrows of Yale- archaeologist " Archaeology has refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown that these views are based on false assumptions."
"The excessive scepticism stems not from a carful examination of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."
"Archaeology on the whole has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record."

Merrill Unger- archaeoligist " Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner has filled in historical gaps."

Most of these guys are quite dated, IIRC. Especially Albright. Useful if youre contesting the even more outdated Wellhausen, but not for more recent ideas.

Archaeological Finds


Jeremiah 32. 9. "And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle's son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. 14.Take these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both which is sealed, and this evidence which is open; and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days."
They located the land near the same location as mentioned. They dug and wonder of wonders Jeremiahs seal in a wine jar. The papyrus was dated before 100 B.C.

So Jeremiah is accurate. Fine if youre contesting Wellhausen, I think, or someone claiming post-exilic composition of prophets. Doesnt speak to accurary of traditions wrt to 1000 BCE.

Hundreds of cities excavated confirm the text of the Old Testament concerning there location.

Yup. Cities still in same places when text was composed. So?

Bronze mirrors were doubted because of "textual criticism" by Julias Wellhausen and others.

Like I said, IIUC Wellhausen is outdated.



[q] I.E did not have the ability to make them when the Bible said they could. They found some in Egypt dated 1500-1200 B.C. That confirms the Old Testament dating of Moses and the exodus.

Hittite capital excavated- Prior to the late 19th century, nothing was known of the Hittites outside the Bible, and many critics alleged that they were an invention of the biblical authors. In 1876 a dramatic discovery changed this perception. A British scholar named A. H. Sayce found inscriptions carved on rocks in Turkey.more clay tablets were found in Turkey at a place called Boghaz-koy. German cuneiform expert Hugo Winckler investigated the tablets and began his own expedition at the site in 1906.Winckler's excavations uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel and several massive sculptures. In one storeroom he found over ten thousand clay tablets. One of the documents proved to be a record of a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite king. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-koy was the capital of the Hittite kingdom. Its original name was Hattusha and the city covered an area of 300 acres. The Hittite nation had been discovered!

Critics once criticized the laws and instructions found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as too complicated for the time it was written (1400 B.C.). The Boghaz-koy texts along with others from Egyptian sites and a site along the Euphrates called Emar have proven that the ceremonies described in the Jewish Pentateuch are consistent with the ceremonies of the cultures of this time period.

Nuzo and Mari digs- Mosaic legislation was seen in Hittite, Assyrian and Sumerian codes. Albright- "This is a contribution before which everything else must fade."

[/q} again the fact that some OLD arguments are wrong, doesnt address current ones.

story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been viewed as a legend. Critics assume that it was created to communicate moral principles.
More digging was done in 1965, 1967, and 1973. The archaeologists discovered a 23-inch thick wall around the city, along with numerous houses and a large temple. Outside the city were huge grave sites where thousands of skeletons were unearthed. This revealed that the city had been well populated during the early Bronze Age, about the time Abraham would have lived.

Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.

Dr. Bryant Wood, in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, "The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom."

Five cities of the plain are mentioned in Genesis 14: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoar, and Zeboiim. Remnants of these other four cities are also found along the Dead Sea. Following a southward path from Bab edh-Drha there is the city called Numeria. Continuing south is the city called es-Safi. Further south are the ancient cities of Feifa and Khanazir. Studies at these cities revealed that they had been abandoned at the same time about 2450–2350 B.C. Many archaeologists believe if Bab ed-Drha is Sodom, Numeria is Gomorrah, and es-Safi is Zoar.

What fascinated the archaeologists is that these cities were covered in the same ash as Bab ed-Drha. Numeria, believed to be Gomorrah, had seven feet of ash in some places. In every one of the destroyed cities ash deposits made the soil a spongy charcoal, making it impossible to rebuild. According to the Bible, four of the five cities were destroyed, leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. Zoar was not destroyed by fire, but was abandoned during this period.


Although archaeologists are still disputing these findings, this is one discovery we will be hearing more about in years to come.

Ok.

Walls of Jericho
According to the Bible, the conquest of Jericho occurred in approximately 1440 B.C. The miraculous nature of the conquest has caused some scholars to dismiss the story as folklore. Does archaeology support the biblical account? Over the past century four prominent archaeologists have excavated the site: Carl Watzinger from 1907-1909, John Garstang in the 1930's, Kathleen Kenyon from 1952-1958, and currently Bryant Wood. The result of their work has been remarkable.

First, they discovered that Jericho had an impressive system of fortifications. Surrounding the city was a retaining wall fifteen feet high. At its top was an eight-foot brick wall strengthened from behind by an earthen rampart. Domestic structures were found behind this first wall. Another brick wall enclosed the rest of the city. The domestic structures found between the two walls is consistent with Joshua's description of Rahab's quarters (Josh. 2:15). Archeologists also found that in one part of the city, large piles of bricks were found at the base of both the inner and outer walls, indicating a sudden collapse of the fortifications. Scholars feel that an earthquake, which may also explain the damming of the Jordan in the biblical account, caused this collapse. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader might easily enter the city (Josh. 6:20).

During the excavations of Jericho 1930-36,Garstang in charge of the dig."As to the main fact that the walls fell outwards, there is no doubt, so completely so that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins"- The walls of cities always fall inwards- Hmmm


Of this amazing discovery Garstang states, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely, the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins of the city."{6} This is remarkable because when attacked city walls fall inward, not outward.

A thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire as described in Joshua 6:24. Kenyon describes it this way. "The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire and every room was filled with fallen bricks." Archaeologists also discovered large amounts of grain at the site. This is again consistent with the biblical account that the city was captured quickly. If it had fallen as a result of a siege, the grain would have been used up. According to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but had to destroy it totally.

Although the archaeologists agreed Jericho was violently destroyed, they disagreed on the date of the conquest.

I thought that there was no agreement that Jericho or Ai were destroyed by violence. Fire could be a result of violence (including internal) or earthquake, or simple accident.

gurstang held to the biblical date of 1400 B.C. while Watzinger and Kenyon believed the destruction occurred in 1550 B.C. In other words, if the later date is accurate, Joshua arrived at a previously destroyed Jericho. This earlier date would pose a serious challenge to the historicity of the Old Testament.

Dr. Bryant Wood, who is currently excavating the site, found that Kenyon's early date was based on faulty assumptions about pottery found at the site. His later date is also based on the discovery of Egyptian amulets in the tombs northwest of Jericho. Inscribed under these amulets were the names of Egyptian Pharaohs dating from 1500-1386 B.C., showing that the cemetery was in use up to the end of the late Bronze Age (1550-1400 B.C.). Finally, a piece of charcoal found in the debris was carbon-14 dated to be 1410 B.C. The evidence leads Wood to this conclusion. "The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of the Late Bronze Age, about 1400 BCE."

Thus, current archeological evidence supports the Bible's account of when and how Jericho fell.

My understanding is that the 1400 BCE date was not that controversial. The problem is relating it to a 1200 BCE date for the cities of Ptom and Ramseses. The problem is that there are two potential dates for exodus, 1200 based on the cities, and 1400 based on the traditional counting back 12 generations from the Temple.

House of David
One of the most beloved characters in the Bible is King David. Scripture says that he was a man after God's own heart. He is revered as the greatest of all Israelite kings and the messianic covenant is established through his lineage. Despite his key role in Israel's history, until recently no evidence outside the Bible attested to his existence. For this reason critics questioned the existence of a King David.

In the summer of 1993, an archaeologist made what has been labeled as a phenomenal and stunning discovery. Dr. Avraham Biran and his team were excavating a site labeled Tell Dan, located in northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon. Evidence indicates that this is the site of the Old Testament land of Dan.

The team had discovered an impressive royal plaza. As they were clearing the debris, they discovered in the ruins the remains of a black basalt stele, or stone slab, containing Aramaic inscriptions. The stele contained thirteen lines of writing but none of the sentences were complete. Some of the lines contained only three letters while the widest contained fourteen. The letters that remained were clearly engraved and easy to read. Two of the lines included the phrases "The King of Israel" and "House of David."

This is the first reference to King David found outside of the Bible. This discovery has caused many critics to reconsider their view of the historicity of the Davidic kingdom. Pottery found in the vicinity, along with the construction and style of writing, lead Dr. Biran to argue that the stele was erected in the first quarter of the ninth century B.C., about a century after the death of King David. Three more references to David have been found since the first in and thru the 90`s.

The translation team discovered that the inscription told of warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans, which the Bible refers to during this period. In this find, a ruler of the Arameans probably Hazael is victorious over Israel and Judah. The stele was erected to celebrate the defeat of the two kings. In 1994 two more pieces were found with inscriptions which refer to Jehoram, the son of Ahab, ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah, who was the ruler over the "House of David" or Judah. These names and facts correspond to the account given in chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Kings. Dr. Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeological Review states, "The stele brings to life the biblical text in a very dramatic way. It also gives us more confidence in the historical reality of the biblical text."



The find has confirmed a number of facts. First, the use of the term "House of David" implies that there was a Davidic dynasty that ruled Israel. We can conclude, then, that a historic King David existed.

This shows that the ruling house in Judah was called the Bet David as early as 875 BCE. It makes it LIKELY that King David is historical. It does NOT confirm the particular stories about David, or the extent of his kingdom.

Second, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were prominent political entities as the Bible describes. Critics long viewed the two nations as simply insignificant states.

My understanding is that its been accepted for some years that Israel under Ahab was fairly strong. The question is how big was the United Monarchy under David.

Dr. Bryant Wood summarizes the importance of this find this way. "In our day, most scholars, archaeologist and biblical scholars would take a very critical view of the historical accuracy of many of the accounts in the Bible. . . . Many scholars have said there never was a David or a Solomon, and now we have a stele that actually mentions David."

Yes the more extreme criticisms of the biblical narrative are weakening. Thats been happening for some time.

Over and over the only true critisicm of the scriptural account is - "I simply dont want to believe it regardless of the facts"
Simply show me 1 single find that disproves the Biblical account without opinion or conjecture. It has yet to be done.

1. The conflicting dates for exodus.
2. The absence of evidence of a massive movement of slaves out of Egypt, and of passage through Sinai
3. Absence any significant non-Canaanite elements in early Israelite material culture.
4. the golden bull story. Yet in northern kingdom the bull is an important element, similar to the kruvim in the south. If the bull story was common, would the northern kingdom really have used this symbol? Or is it Judaen propaganda agains the northern kingdom?
5. The two Syrian kingdoms are said to give homage to the United Monarchy. Later they are clearly independent and non-tributary, yet no mention of any kind of revolt. Were they really tributary, or is this again Judean propadanda, perhaps based on some gift?

Again the issue here is how accurate are the detailed accounts of the reign of David.

[beingofone]

Lord of the Mark - I appreciate your study, you made the time to find out the truth. I can only learn from our discussion.

In any case, even if all "OT" material were identical with Masoretic texts, this would only tell us that the Masorectic tradition is the right one for the post Exilic text, NOT the date of origin of the text.

It would also tell us that the copied text was accurate for over a 1000 years.Before the DSS it was assumed that the massoretic had to be flawed. So now according to "modern textual criticism" they are once again presuming the pre-DSS text are flawed. What kind of logic is that? If the text passed a 1000 year test why would you ussume it is inacurate?

theres much more sophisticated criticisms than this. Though none are incontrovertible proof.

It was just a goofy example But hey I have heard and read so called experts use this very rational to pick apart what they don`t want to believe.

how many of the 40 are pre, say 900 BCE? Or even take a Wellhausen type hypothesis of much later composition. You would only apply the above math to kings named EARLIER than the proposed composition date. And IIUC the current state of the art is that the composition, oral or otherwise, is much earlier than the classical doc hypothesis.

Ok - how about we subtract a zero or two? And you quoting a dated scholars study

Most of these guys are quite dated, IIRC. Especially Albright. Useful if youre contesting the even more outdated Wellhausen, but not for more recent ideas.

Einstein is dated for modern physics. So based on this logic should we discard all of his hypothesis and conclusions?
Albright to my knowledge has had only 3 conclusions overturned out of thousands. I could be wrong on this if you know of any more let me know.

So Jeremiah is accurate. Fine if youre contesting Wellhausen, I think, or someone claiming post-exilic composition of prophets. Doesnt speak to accurary of traditions wrt to 1000 BCE.

The point is- I intentionally gave a listing of outdated criticisms, but like today, at the time they were present doubts of scripture.
According to present thinking "Just because many if not most parts of the text is proven beyond all doubt- we should still assume that the rest of the text is wrong and unreliable." Again were is the logic?

Yup. Cities still in same places when text was composed. So?

There are at least 10 cities mentioned dated 2000 BCE.
Prove that the ancient Shang Dynasty, Indus Valley, or for that matter Macedonia even existed. Yet when the same method is used for the Bible it is diregarded. A double standard is applied to scripture. In my thinking only because of the appeal to the supernatural still existing to this day would impact my personal life.
There is more proof in all forms for the scripture on ancient history then any other texts, yet because it cannot be 100% proven it is unreliabe? Again use common sense.

Like I said, IIUC Wellhausen is outdated.

Again at the time his criticisms were espoused as the truth until almost all of his methods of doubting the ancient text were disproven.
Just like today- the assumption is that the text is wrong yet know evidence at all to support this claim.

Ok.

All the evidence points to the Biblical account of Sodom yet it is disputed by the scientific method of - "I don`t like the results of the find"

I thought that there was no agreement that Jericho or Ai were destroyed by violence. Fire could be a result of violence (including internal) or earthquake, or simple accident.

Yet identical description of the cities cause of destruction as in the scripture i.e. fire and walls tumbling. So the best method of propaganda is to discredit the way destruction occured as a last resort.

My understanding is that the 1400 BCE date was not that controversial. The problem is relating it to a 1200 BCE date for the cities of Ptom and Ramseses. The problem is that there are two potential dates for exodus, 1200 based on the cities, and 1400 based on the traditional counting back 12 generations from the Temple.

Please explain your thought here - I do not understand your point as far as relating to the Egyptian cities.

This shows that the ruling house in Judah was called the Bet David as early as 875 BCE. It makes it LIKELY that King David is historical. It does NOT confirm the particular stories about David, or the extent of his kingdom.

Prove Caeser crossed the Rubicon.There are 14,000 copied texts of ancient scripture including a Sumerian dated 2000 yrs old.There are 9 or 10 for Caeser. None question Caesers account- why is that?

Please indulge me by quoting Aristotle again "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself"- this should be a rule of thumb, and it is except for scripture.

Yes the more extreme criticisms of the biblical narrative are weakening. Thats been happening for some time.

Thank you for your honesty-that is more than I can say for most "experts". I am grateful for your candid approach to the facts even if we disagree

1. The conflicting dates for exodus.

At least you admit there was an exodus. The jury is still out on the date.

2. The absence of evidence of a massive movement of slaves out of Egypt, and of passage through Sinai

Yup you are right here. Just like the Hittites and David, no evidence as of yet other then scripture.

3. Absence any significant non-Canaanite elements in early Israelite material culture.

Maybe they were in Egypt at the time- hmm

4. the golden bull story. Yet in northern kingdom the bull is an important element, similar to the kruvim in the south. If the bull story was common, would the northern kingdom really have used this symbol? Or is it Judaen propaganda agains the northern kingdom?

The scripture is crystal clear about the Northern kingdom at odds with the Southern and Eastern kingdoms over this and other issues of religion.
Sure they would if they had at the time forsaken the traditional worship of Yahwey.

5. The two Syrian kingdoms are said to give homage to the United Monarchy. Later they are clearly independent and non-tributary, yet no mention of any kind of revolt. Were they really tributary, or is this again Judean propadanda, perhaps based on some gift?

This was so common in ancient nations. example- the Greek cities in Asia Minor under Darius of the Persian empire. No mention in Herodius account of how the cities freed themselves after the initial revolt and became allies of Athens.

I enjoyed your comments Lord of the Mark

[curtsibling]

The scenario is indeed looking to be a real classic!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by beingofone
Lord of the Mark - I appreciate your study, you made the time to find out the truth. I can only learn from our discussion.



It would also tell us that the copied text was accurate for over a 1000 years.Before the DSS it was assumed that the massoretic had to be flawed. So now according to "modern textual criticism" they are once again presuming the pre-DSS text are flawed. What kind of logic is that? If the text passed a 1000 year test why would you ussume it is inacurate?

Why would the text stabilize after 100 CE, but not the 1000 years before that? Thats easy. Around 100 CE the Rabbis laid out ground rules for preserving the biblical text, how it was to be copied, with what care, by whom etc. No references handy, but im pretty sure its a central topic of Halachah (jewish religious law). This would stabilize the Hebrew text, as scribes copying it from that point FORWARD would follow these rules, which ensured against scribal error.

Now the question comes - do you beleive that these same laws were being followed from the time of Moses, well before they were commited to writing? That is, indeed the position of most Orthodox Jews. Are you an Orthodox Jew?

[lord of the mark]

"[The Egyptians] appointed conscription officers over [the Israelites] to crush their spirits with hard labor. [The Israelites] were to build up the cities of Pithom and Ra'amses as supply centers for Pharaoh.

Vayasimu alav sarey misim lema'an anoto besivlotam vayiven arey miskenot le-Far'oh et-Pitom ve'et-Ra'amses"

[beingofone]

.

The scenario is indeed looking to be a real classic

thanks Curt

lord of the mark "[The Egyptians] appointed conscription officers over [the Israelites] to crush their spirits with hard labor. [The Israelites] were to build up the cities of Pithom and Ra'amses as supply centers for Pharaoh.

Ah now I understand- the Leiden papyrus.
I think from the find at Tell-el-Amarna it is clear that there were still Hebrews living in Egypt after the classic date of the exodus. This by no means overturns the exodus story, it just means there were still Israelites in Egypt- ok.
In fact there was an entire sect of Jews living in Ethiopia until 1992. Their ethos was to follow the law of Moses and the keeping of strict Jewish tradition. Their dna was checked and compared and it was 95% probable that they were of Jewish descent. Hmmm maybe the last exodus in our time no less.

Why would the text stabilize after 100 CE, but not the 1000 years before that? Thats easy. Around 100 CE the Rabbis laid out ground rules for preserving the biblical text, how it was to be copied, with what care, by whom etc. No references handy, but im pretty sure its a central topic of Halachah (jewish religious law). This would stabilize the Hebrew text, as scribes copying it from that point FORWARD would follow these rules, which ensured against scribal error.

The analogies of Babylonian documents now existing of which we have both originals and copies, thousands of years apart, and of scores of papryi show when compared only minor changes. Why and how did these documents remain faithful to the text?


Except that the scroll of Daniel found in the DSS was dated before 300 B.C. I would agree with you.It was dated because it was in Northern Aramaic which no longer was in use at 100 B.C. It was word for word identical [given translation]
There are many more proofs - such as the towns that were destroyed if the text had the later dates claimed how would they know about small towns?
The price of slaves as related in the story of Joseph later confirmed in other foriegn manuscripts.
etc.etc.
It is easy to challenge any statement of fact. Example- prove to me Napoleon invaded Russia? If you told me that history confirms this I just simply question the source and dating -again and again.

Now the question comes - do you beleive that these same laws were being followed from the time of Moses, well before they were commited to writing? That is, indeed the position of most Orthodox Jews. Are you an Orthodox Jew?

The law of Moses to my knowledge has never been "followed". Even by those who claim they do.For I personally believe the Law of Moses is impossible to keep.
Who and what am I? I am
Who and what are you?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by beingofone


Ah now I understand- the Leiden papyrus.
I think from the find at Tell-el-Amarna it is clear that there were still Hebrews living in Egypt after the classic date of the exodus. This by no means overturns the exodus story, it just means there were still Israelites in Egypt- ok.

Enough Jews to build two major cities, to warrant mention in the (terse) bible text. The flow of the narrative seems to imply VERY strongly that the exodus events occured AFTER the building of Pithom and Ramses. Do say that the entire narrative from exodus to Joshua happened (up to a destruction of Jericho before 1300 BCE) and THEN the cities were built requires an odd view of the texts (but then both the Midrashic and Christiant traditions take odd views of some texts, so why object?) The other explanation, which IIRC was Albrights is that there were 2 exoduses.

If youre willing to accept 2 exoduses, and jews remaining in Egypt after the first one (and maybe after the second one) why not make the leap to the idea that many of the Jews NEVER went to Egypt, and that the "flight from Egypt" may have been a series of small slave escapes? This would explain the cultural finds in Judea (continuity with Canaanites, no Egyptian influence) and the lack of reference in the Egyptian records, and the lack of confirming evidence in the Sinai Peninsula. If we take a look at the Amarna letters, we find a Canaanite society dominated by Egyptian models, with Egyptian soldiers present, and with peasant serfdom/slavery. Escape of these peasant from the coastal cities to the hill country would be logical, and would account for much of the exodus narrative, which would naturally get mixed with the stories of the slaves fleeing Egypt proper, and the Apiru living in the wilderness. This is problematic if you MUST have a literal revelation AT Sinai, but if you see Sinai as symbolic of the experience of this newly formed (Jewish) people, I see no religious problems with this explanation. And again it better explains both the striking similarities of Jewish society to Canaanite (language, material culture, even the name of god taken from the Canaanite pantheon) AND the differences (monotheist religion and an ethic of free peasant social equality) AND the temptations to relapse (When the Judean kings conquer the Canaanite low country, they are drawn back toward both the Canaanite pantheon and towards Canaanite social structure, with its inequalities and corvee labor) AND the resistance to those temptations (the prophets, voices for the hill country peasants, defending both the monotheism and the social ethic of hill country Jewish society)

[Exile]

Your analog of Napoleon's invasion of Russia is invalid. Napoleon (nor anyone else) has ever claimed that the Gulf of Bothnia "parted" and then closed on the armies of the Tsar, nor that the Grande Armee' was followed by a "Pillar of fire" by night, nor that the earth stood still during the period of an entire day to allow him to finish off the Russians at Borodino.

You ask, over and over, martyr-like, Why-oh-why do people ridicule and refuse to believe the biblical narrative?

1.) Exceptional claims require exceptional proofs.

2.) Aren't fairy tales for children?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Exile
Your analog of Napoleon's invasion of Russia is invalid. Napoleon (nor anyone else) has ever claimed that the Gulf of Bothnia "parted" and then closed on the armies of the Tsar, nor that the Grande Armee' was followed by a "Pillar of fire" by night, nor that the earth stood still during the period of an entire day to allow him to finish off the Russians at Borodino.

You ask, over and over, martyr-like, Why-oh-why do people ridicule and refuse to believe the biblical narrative?

1.) Exceptional claims require exceptional proofs.

2.) Aren't fairy tales for children?

Number 2 is the kind of thing that provokes the beingofone's justified reaction. The bible IS quite important as a historical source document, for a period much less documented than the Napoleonic era, whether you beleive in the miracle stories or not (or take them as allegorical) Being has chosen to make a civ2 scenario (to get back on topic) about a period (the Reign of King David) where there arent particularly many miracle stories, and the bible reads as essentially a historical narrative. The issue is not that its a "fairy tale" but rather that it may be biased,the relevant materials having (apparently) been written by folks with a strong interest in glorifying the Davidic dynasty. We have gotten off onto something of a tangent discuss the general field of biblical criticism and the exodus (also no fairy tale, at least in the broadest outline - there certainly WAS a movement of israelites or proto-Israelites into the hill country of Judea and Samaria at the end of the bronze age)

[Exile]

Ok, granted.

I was reading my copy of A Comparative History of Civilizations in Asia today and noticed that the Assyrian section used numerous references to biblical statements from the old testament. So . . . ok.

What irks me is the repeated, martyr-like complaints. "Why don't people accept ALL of this stuff (just like I do, therefore reinforcing my beliefs)?" What comes across with a position like this is a passive-aggressive mindset and the obvious a priori bias . . . a complaint that is repeatedly directed at those who take the role of critic. Seen in a purely tactical light, it's a neat pre-emptive device. Believe what you want to, produce whatever scenarios you enjoy, but IF one decides to WHINE, then terse and sarcastic responses should be anticipated. This is THE primary tactic of the "spritual" or "religious." If they're in control, it's time to repress "heresy" and if they're not, they're being "persecuted."

Doesn't this get old after, oh, say, 2000 years?

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Exile
Your analog of Napoleon's invasion of Russia is invalid. Napoleon (nor anyone else) has ever claimed that the Gulf of Bothnia "parted" and then closed on the armies of the Tsar, nor that the Grande Armee' was followed by a "Pillar of fire" by night, nor that the earth stood still during the period of an entire day to allow him to finish off the Russians at Borodino.

You are right it is a weak example- but I had hoped you would understand my point regardless of the poor example.

You ask, over and over, martyr-like, Why-oh-why do people ridicule and refuse to believe the biblical narrative?

1.) Exceptional claims require exceptional proofs.

2.) Aren't fairy tales for children?

Just to clarify - what I said 3 times was why doesn`t the Bible get the same treatment as other historical documents. I did say that "higher criticism" is flawed in their predisposition of scripture.
I gave you several references to validate the scriptural stories of Sodom and Jericho- you reject the facts outright, So be it.
I must have offended you in my first post talking with you Exile. If I did I apoligize for being curt and short- but I do not apoligize for my position. In my thinking you have been just as adament about your beliefs as I have ever been. I do not think I insulted you, if I did please point it out to me, so that I can truly apoligize which you would deserve.

Once again I offer the challenge to anyone to show 1 single find that overturns the scriptural story. Well?

What irks me is the repeated, martyr-like complaints. "Why don't people accept ALL of this stuff (just like I do, therefore reinforcing my beliefs)?" What comes across with a position like this is a passive-aggressive mindset and the obvious a priori bias . . . a complaint that is repeatedly directed at those who take the role of critic. Seen in a purely tactical light, it's a neat pre-emptive device. Believe what you want to, produce whatever scenarios you enjoy, but IF one decides to WHINE, then terse and sarcastic responses should be anticipated. This is THE primary tactic of the "spritual" or "religious." If they're in control, it's time to repress "heresy" and if they're not, they're being "persecuted."

How much do you know out of all there is to know in the entire universe? 10% 5% 1%
In the other 90% that you know absolutely nothing about. Is there any room for God or the supernatural?
And how much of the entire universe have you experienced? In the 90% you have yet to experience do you think you might change your mind about some conclusions you have made?

If we went back in time -say 100 years, and tried to say that there were radio waves in the air. people would say you were not being rational. Yet with the proper receiver they become believers. You cannot smell,see,touch,hear, or taste radio waves- yet they are real regardless of your belief.

Your experience obviously has told you certain things and brought you to conclusions about reality and life.And you must believe your own reality above all else.
If you had 1 time in your life witnessed the non-ordinary reality that I have, you might think differently about the construction of the universe and the reality of your nature of existence.

If you think you have a handle on it - go ahead and explain the nature of your own existence. Not to me but to yourself. Who are you? what are you?
You have thoughts, but you decide what to think about.So you are more then your thoughts. You have emotions, dreams, ambitions. But you are beyond all of these things because you choose.
If you lost a finger in an accident would you be less aware of yourself as a person? Ah- so you are more then physical. Then what exactly are you?