-Jay-

It occurred to me after my initial reply that this is a more interesting question than it might seem on the surface, because of the sorts of evidence that you might encounter in such a situation. You'd really be looking more for things like evidence of encampments, firepits, latrines/refuse pits, discarded weapons, and such like. The dead, unless they were well buried, don't always leave a lot of evidence. Perhaps one of the archaeologists that hang about here might offer some thoughts.

regards,

NinJay

Cege

My googling hasn't resulted in any archeological finds that would support the numbers of people given in 1 Samuel. Apparently no such battlefield has been located but finding the exact location appears to be problematic.

I can't say that I understand how warfare was staged in 1200 BCE, either, beyond having heard that Israelites were still using bronze weapons when the Philistines had iron. Would that be how 30,000 men were supposed to be killed in a single day--superior weapons?

The Israelites fled the battlefield ("each man to his own tent") and the Philistines didn't pursue. Was that a rule of engagement? or did the terrain make pursuit unwise? Did they flee to family tents 'back home' or were those tents pitched at the army encampment?

What happened to 34,000 dead bodies on the battlefield? Did the rules of war allow for a time-out so bodies could be buried and/or burned?

Malachi151

My view on all of this, (the descriptions of "God" in the Torah and other early writings) is that the Hebrew scriptures are based on Mesopotamian religious traditions, and those religions traditions developed from stories about the first human rulers, who were called gods.

Effectively, what we have are religions that developed in Mesopotamia around 5,000 to 6,000 years ago where the first true cities and educated rulers came into being, and these rulers were called "gods".

The illiterate, savage, slave-like people, who still lived in the "wilderness" and walked around naked and foraged for food, etc., looked to these city builders and ruling classes as inconceivably powerful.

It is from this early situation that all Mesopotamian religious traditions emerged, developing into the stories that we now find in the Sumerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Egyptian, and Hebrew scriptures.

The humans, who were called gods, became immortalized in legends, and became the basis of all the later religious traditions in this region, the remnants of those traditions still showing up in odd places as they are preserved in the stories, such as what you are talking about in 1 Samuel, as well as what we find in Enuma Elish (Babylonian), Genesis, Exodus, and some of the Psalms.

OneInFundieville

I go to a somewhat similar weekly bible study and do something a bit similar. The church has wi-fi so I often bring my laptop so I have e-Sword and can look up things online as the guy is talking.

Magdlyn

Excuse me for coming in late. The RSV says "LORD of hosts" there, 1 Sam 4:4, not Lord Almighty.

YHWH of Armies is what Lord of hosts means, and that would be appropriate for bringing into battle riding on the cherubim, winged 4 footed beasts that they were.

El Shaddai (god of breasts), mistranslated God Almighty, is another god altogether.


The Judahites had a similar situation during the Babylonian exile. If they were in Babylon, where was their god?

Cege

I was quoting the NIV, which uses God Almighty, but I see that Young's Literal Translation uses "Jehovah of Hosts", like the RSV does.

4And the people sendeth to Shiloh, and they take up thence the ark of the covenant of Jehovah of Hosts, inhabiting the cherubs, and there [are] two sons of Eli, with the ark of the covenant of God, Hophni and Phinehas.

Why does the NIV use Almighty instead of Hosts?

Magdlyn

Actually LORD Almighty, which is what caught my attention. afaik, there is no ref to YHWH Shaddai in the entire Bible.

I don't know, but it's sure disturbing!

It's a pet peeve of mine that Shaddai is translated Almighty and Armies is camoflaged as Hosts. That's bad enough. But to say LORD (Yahweh) Almighty is just inexcusable.

It is very impt, imo, when reading the Hebrew Bible to always mentally translate God as El and LORD as Yahweh, and Almighty as Shaddai (breasted fertility goddess) and hosts as armies. It really makes things clearer for historical context and to elucidate theological evolution.

Clouseau

It's taken as dynamic equivalence, the hosts being powerful angels.

'Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will.' Ps 103:21 NIV

Cege

Whatever "it's taken as", why does the NIV use Almighty rather than Hosts, if the Hebrew is Hosts?

How is the reader to know whether the cherubim on the ark are the "hosts" or if some other hosts are intended?

Clouseau

How many cherubim were there?