|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Israel (& Judah) in history and tradition. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4916 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
I would like a topic (in the Bible Accuracy forum)which gives the pro-Bible side an opportunity to present historical evidence for Israel in the archaeological , textual , and hisorical records avaliable which supports the notion that the Israelite Monarchy period is historical.
This covers the history outlined from the book of 1 Samuel till II Kings/Chronicles.The typical dates are 1042BCE till 587 BCE. Archaeological evidence can come from discoveries in Palestine including excavation results. (the Bible-skeptics can present surveys, excavations, and recent chronological schemes which disprove the claim that there could have been a significant kingdom in a said period) Historical evidence can come from extant traditions by non-Israelite peoples. Textual evidence can come from historical references to "Israel" , or the "house of Y (where Y equals said dynasty name which equals Biblical ruling houses). Evidence from the "tradition" sector will be weak by nature, but is mainly used a a yead-stick for which to measure the historical and archaeological results. (the Bible can be considered a "tradition" I suppose) NOTE: I ask the pro-Bible side to please keep in mind the difference between Israel and Judah, between the United Monarchy and the Divided Monarchy, between extant sources and non-extant sources, between late traditions and historical sources archaeologically current to the actual events the Bible describes. I also ask that "evidence" from archaeology & history be used in a measured way (ie. dont reach too broad of conclusions when the presented piece of *evidence* doesnt demand such disproportional "support for the exact details the Bible describes" for *its* respected period) (example: There Merenptah reference doesnt indicate "Israel" as holding ANY land at-all , so its cant be used as evidence that later Israel controlled the entire land of Palestine- though it DOES indeed have major historical value, but it's value must be used in a measured way) END NOTE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I often think it is important to remember that even if there was a United Monarchy, it was far more like England and Scotland under James I & VI then one truly united nation. For almost all of Biblical History the Hebrews were either divided into independent and often fighting clans or two separate and often fighting Nations. There seems to be little to indicate that at anytime they did not still identify themselves as either Northern Israelis or Southern Jews. Much as under James I & VI (and even more under James VII), if you went to London folk would say they were English however if you traveled to Edinburgh they would say they were Scots.
Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4916 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
And that doesnt just apply to the 2 Israelite kingdoms.
Remember that there were constant wars with many peoples-especially the coastal Philistines? And even by the 950's BCE , Gezer was still held by the Canaanites(among others).Even more interesting is that Gezer was actually in-between Philistia and much of Judea (or Benjamin or some other tribe, I forget exactly), so it is doubtful the Israelites were entirely secure and ever in complete control of Philistia during the United Monarchy of c1042-925 (...if there even was one). Related to those issues are whether the splendor of Solomon's kingdom as described in the Bible was exaggerated. Let me quote the great H.G. Well's in a 1942 edition (he updated it according to the latest discoveries) of a 1921 book
H.G. Wells Pocket History of the World CHAPTER TWENTY-ONETHE EARLY HITORY OF THE JEWS .... They were settled in Judea long before 1000 B.C. , and their capital city after that time was Jerusalem. .... ... the Hebrew Bible.This literatue appears in history in the fourth or fifth century B.C. Probably this literature was first put together in Babylon. .... Before that time the Jews do not seem to have been a very civilized or united people. .... And after a long sojourn in Egypt and after forty years of wandering ... invaded the land of Canaan.... They may have done this somwhere between 1600 B.C. and 1300 B.C.; there are no Egyptian records of Moses nor of Canaan at this time to help out the story.But at any rate they did not succeed in conquering any more than the hilly backgrounds of the promised land. .... For many generations the children of Abraham remained an obscure people of the hilly back country engaged in incessant bickering with the Philistines and with the kindred tribes about them, the Moabites , the Midianites , and so forth.The... Book of Judges a record of their strugges and disasters during this period.For very largely it is a record of disasters and failures frankly told. For most of this period the Hebrews were ruled, so far as there was any rule among them, by priestly judges selected by elders of the peple, but at last, ... towards 1000 B.C., they choose themselves a king.... But Sauls leading was no great improvment .... he perished under the hail of Philistine rrows ... his body was nailed to the walls of Beth-shan. His successor David was more successful.......And Solomon achived a prosperity and magnificence un-precedented in the experience of his people.He was even given a daughter of Pharaoh in marriage. But it is well to keep the proportion of things in mind.At the climax of his glories Solomon was only a little sub-ordinate king in a little city.His power was so transitory that within a few years of his death Shishak, the first Pharaoh of the twenty-second dynasty, had taken Jerusalem and looted most of its splendors.The account of Solomon's magnificence given in the Books of Kings and Chronicles is questioned by many critics.They say it was added to and exaggerated by the patriotic pride of later writers.But the Bible account read carefully is not so overwhelming as it appears at the first reading.Solomon's temple, if one works out the measurements , would go inside a small suburban church, and his fourteen hundred chariots cease to impress us when we learn from an Assyrian monument that his successor Ahab sent a contingent of 2,000 to the Assyrian army.It is also plainly manifest from the Bible narrative that Solomon spent himself in display an overtaxed and overworked his people.At his death the northern part of his kingdom broke off from Jerusalem and became the indepedent kingdom of Israel.Jerusalem remained the capital city of Judah. The prosperity ... short-lived. Egypt grew strong again.The history ... becomes a history of two little states ground between, first, Syria , then Assyria and then Babylon to the north and Egypt to the south.It is a tale of barbaric kings ruling a barbaric people.In 721 B.C. the kingdom of Israel was swept away .... and its people utterly lost to history.Judah struggled on.... There may be details open to criticism in the Bible ... from the days of the Judges onward, but on the whole it is evidently a true story which squares with all that has been learned in the excavation of Egypt and Assyria and Babylon during the past century. It was in Babylon that the Hebrew people got their history together and evolved their tradition..... They had learned civilization.
Interesting observations. Up till the last 15 years, this was the general view. Now archaeological evidence (or lack) of Jerusalem during the early monarchy has caused a serious double-look at the reliability of the Judah history not to mention the United Monarchy. Also; From the territory of what would later become the northern kingdom of Israel , there has also been questions asked of the early dating ( 10th century) of structures built. Some feel an accurate archaeological chronology should place some cities "Israelite" phase (to distinguish from the previous period of Canaanite occupation, plus abandonment) around the 9th century which would falsify the early Israelite splendor (and extent) of Solomons kingdom if it even extended out from Jerusalem at all. (Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer being particular area's of dispute) The only responce I will present will be on the Judah/Jerusalem end and it will be indirect evidence.
Ancient Palestine A Historical introduction Gosta Ahlstrom Some periods ... difficult ... because of the paucity of both textual and archaeological material.For parts of Palestine such a period is the Late Bronze Age.For instance, there are many archaeological remains in the valleys and on the coast, but becase the LB age was a time of very few settlements in the central hills , the archaeological picture will be very spotty.However, the tablets frm Tell el-Amarna contain the corresondence between the Pharaoh an his Syro-Palestinian vassals during the fourteenth century B.C.E. The tablets, written in Akkadian, talk about a number of city states in the lowlands and the valleys , but only about a very few in the central hills, namely Shecem and Jerusalem, and Pehel (Pella) in the foothills of Jordan.... How much history do these texts relate? A literary analysis shows a formulaic language with common ideas, ... defence for a city-kings actions ... problems with neighboring city-states , robbers , and so on. .... There is no corroborative material that can be used , nor is there any information about the chain of events of the context that led to the writing beside what the letters mention.Thus, a history cannot really be written frm these texts, but the letters are useful for filling in some gaps in the political and demographic picture of this period.
Indeed. It, the textual record, shows that the central hill-country of Judah and Israel (Shechem was in the later northern kingdom's territory) had in c1350 BCE surviving Canaanite cities which happen to be the exact two that the Bible describes as held by Canaanites post Conquest and through the Judges period-including Jerusalem! The archaeological record desnt show much for Jerusalem during the period however.It is hard to excavate there due to major-population. This is indirect evidence that can be used to support the United Monarchy.But it isnt decisive at all if one wants to defend every last detail of the United Monarchy.It only shows that there a a core, even if very thin, of truth to the historical background. However, Ahlstrom died over 15 years ago; before the mass of recent archaeological work began to be digested and looked at. During Ahlstroms time, the existence of a United Monarchy ruled by David and Solomon was taken as a historical factby most (but not all) historians.It began to be more questioned among secular-historians as time went on though. Enter the last 10-15 years. Now many (more) questions are being asked. Im glad they are because nothing should be taken for granted. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There was no PALESTINE at this time, a name appearing only in the 1st C CE and instigated by Rome. Its usage for ancient history is only a false propaganda seeking to deligitimise Israel's history. Israel was a sovereign state from Joshua to 70 CE, with a break of 70 years during the babylon Invasion; some parts of Canaan were not incorporated will 150 years later, due to the incursions of the original philistines, as recorded in the OT and book of Joshua. Better you evidence any Arab claims to later history, and the hijacking of the name 'PALESTINIAN', than of Israel - this is the most evidenced, recorded and known history of all nations. Most of today's arab states never existed pre-Briton, namely some 150 years ago; the Arab race never existed pre-500 BCE. I have posted a timeline map in this forum. The divisions seen in Judea and Samaria [today's 'west bank' name is only a few decades old], is a commonplace syndrome in all nations. The country was divided into Judea and Israel well after King David's unification of the land, but the entire land was a sovereign Jewish entity. It is a domestic issue only.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4916 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
Great job!
Is the fact that you present no evidence for your claims because there is no evidence or because you simply cant do the research to find any evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I did provide evidence. That is what an historical timeline does: and it shows no arabs pre-500 BCE; no Palestine pre-70 CE; no muslim Palestinians pre-60's.
This is a copious doc and not worth posting in every thread. It is you who provided no evidence that Jews are the answers of muslim palestinians, negating a peoples' entire history as a fact w/o any proof. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4916 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
Palestine is a neutral term for the land during all periods of history.
*ALL* scholars use the term. The reason it isnt called "Israel" in say 2000 BCE is because it would be confusing since the Israelites were not in the land till much later. Palestine is simply the name of the land and it has nothing to do with whether somebody is Arab, European , Israelite,Canaanite, etc. If you cant understand that, then please stay out of topics that cover historical proofs for the land of Palestine during a said period. (and the issue here centers around the "Israelite" phase of Palestinian history- got any *evidence* for it?) AGAIN. This thread is about Israelites and it covers Israelite history. And it doesnt even have to do with beliefs.I dont care if somebody is the most brain-dead fundamentalist the world has ever seen.I only care about historical evidence surrounding the *ANCIENT* Israelites. I dont care if you are an athiest. I care what your contribution is to the hisorical details. (see OP- Opening Post) If you dont understand the basics of history then stay out.And the most basic of understandings is knowing that the neutral term of "Palestine" is a conventional scholarly term that all experts use.If you are so shocked by the term, then it proves you havnt got 2 pages of historical study under your belt. So, I will repeat; anybody who is shocked by the use of "Palestine" as a neutral term for the land during any period (not specific to the actual ruling ethnic group during whatever period) should stop posting and spend their time reading historical works. Once you do a little learning, then the ignorant obsession over small things will vanish.Small things only impress small minds. (and a MOD told me they will take action to limit disruption over the "Palestine" usage once this was explained)
Every Good Man Is Free
XII.(75) Morever Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which conuntries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. -Philo of Alexandria-(c30BCE to c40 CE)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4916 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
The 2500 (or more) year old usage of "Palestine" as the name of the land is off-limits for debate in this thread(and perhaps others where the debate does not belong).
If people want to create a time-machine and go back and erase the history of our planet & the fact that this term was used for the land longer than any other term, then fine. But, short of that, I ask that people simply respect the history of our planet and the historical reality it has created. The debate over the use of "Palestine" for the land during all of western recorded history (starting with Herodotus) is not welcome in this thread. Scholarship cannot be erased due to post-1800's (dispensationalist) fantasies. Neither is a debate over whether 2 plus 2 equals 4. History books wont be burned if I have *anything* to do with it. Scholarship will not be censored even if it is politically-incorrect. And FINALLY it wont be debated in this thread regardless. "Palestine" as a neutral term for the land is NOT up for debate. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: BS! Even if anyone speaks retrospectively, using today's descriptions of Palestine, it is incorrect. And ALL arab muslims know this fact - they just pretend and dstort - or worse. This region was a sovereign jewish state called Judea till 70 CE. Fact. Also, there was a Jewish temple here, and some people dumped a mosque atop of it: thus that temple becomes a zionist myth. Very islamist and Arabesque history.
quote: This is wrongly/decpetively quoted: The date at the bottom cannot be right, unless the entire Roman-Jewish war is a fiction. In this war, 200,000 pre-islamic 'arab' mercenaries were recruited [Josephus Documents; with cross-reference Roman archives]. This date is NOT 30 - 40 CE, and in fact begins at 70CE. There was no Palestine or Palestinians before 70 CE. It is also why Jesus could never have been a Palestinian - unless his death is given incorrectly as 31 CE. In this portion of history, Islamic views are not legitimate: there was no arabic writings yet for some 600 years, and no archives exist of any Islamic views on this topic. Muslims tout this bogus version of history for a cover up to numerous other falsehoods - they will become exposed for sustaining this revisionist history, as well as those who condone it via silence. TO COVER ONE LIE - A 1000 TRUTHS MUST BE COVERED. OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. This off topic post has been rendered invisible. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Edited by AdminPD, : Rendered Invisible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is no 2500 usage of this name. The Philistines are first mentioned in the OT; the land became Palestine in 70CE and applied exclusively to Jews. The arab muslims hated this name exactly as they do Zionists today - still they hijacked this as a Political tool to prop up all other falsehoods claimed by them - eg, the Jews converted to Islam and are now muslim Palestinians [sic]. That is why we are never shown any evidence pre-1960 of muslims associating themselves to this name, not a relic suggesting what they claim exists, while all discoveries in Israel expose only the antithesis of the claims made here. It is an intentional and purposeful lie subsequent to covering and justifying a host of other falsities - it is not a confusion, being presented. It ain't history. OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. This off topic post has been rendered invisible. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Edited by AdminPD, : Rendered Invisible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Palestine is a neutral term for the land during all periods of history. That is what most of us, save certain individuals, have basically been saying. I would still like to know where IAJ gets his info.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The name Palestine was applied by Rome upon Judea:
quote: That the early greeks referred to the entire east coast as "the Philistine Syria" referred to another, totally unrelated factor, namely the greeks were not referring this name to Judea but to the original Philistines from the Agean sea, which place the greeks also shared an origin with. Both the greeks and the original philistines being non-semitic peoples, and the philistines settled along the east coast between Egypt and syria - first recorded in the OT, and the reason the Israelites took the long route to Canaan and not the coastal one. This is unrelated to today's Palestine, which applied exclusively to the Jewish homeland, and the source of this is by the Roman Emperor Hardian - well after the Philistines were vanquished. It is thus presented as a total distortion by Nimrod, not that there is any confusion of it by Arab muslims:
quote: The issue of Muslim Palestinians is 1960 with Arafat. Prior to this time, this name was referred to Jews only. OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. This off topic post has been rendered invisible. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Edited by AdminPD, : Rendered Invisible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
More:
quote: More:
quote: OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. This off topic post has been rendered invisible. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2931 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Nicely cut and pasted from here:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/...istory_palestine.html I hope to hell others recognize how far down your credibility lies. I googled the last entire half of your post, enclosed with quotes, and got the link above. The rest was there as well. You like stole the entire thing word for word. You are okay with that? How many commandments do you feel like breaking at a time? ABE: I clicked on your second link and found again the word for word discourse you wrote. I take it you mean everything after that is the quote and as such I apologize. I am sorry for this. OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. This off topic post has been rendered invisible. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Followed IaJ's link and realized he may not have been plagirizing Edited by AdminPD, : Warning "I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024