Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 06-07-2009, 05:38 PM

IAMJoseph has stated that the Pentateuch was writtten during the wilderness period. This position has been acceptable for probably more than 2000 years, but unlike the theory of evolution, has taken some pretty strong blows over the last 1000 years or so.

One of the little problems might be that Paleo Hebrew and/or Phoenician script has only existed from about 1050 BCE or not long before the advent of the so called United Kingdom. The song of Deborah, may date from around this time.

IAMJoseph countered my suggestion that the Phoenician/Hebrew alphabet may have spread to Greece by Phoenician trading ships by mentioning the navy of King Solomon. This puzzled me at first and finally I've decided to post it here to see if there are any comments, as opposed to seeing it drowned in the interminable flood debates.

Quote:

Kings 9:26 And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Elath, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. 9:27 And Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. 9:28 And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon.

There seems to be some issues with bulding a Navy here, seems a bit out of the way. Ezion-geber is mentioned a few times in the Pentateuch, and there may have been some Judean military activity there in the 8th century BCE (and possibly the 9th) but nothing has been retrieved from Soloman's time.

At the same time there have been discoveries of Phoenician shipwrecks in the Mediteranean possibly dating from the 8th centruy, and Phoenician trade seems to be well established in the region, as opposed to Israelite, or Judean.

Just curious if anyone has any insight into any of this.

Petergdi · 06-07-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

One of the little problems might be that Paleo Hebrew and/or Phoenician script has only existed from about 1050 BCE or not long before the advent of the so called United Kingdom. The song of Deborah, may date from around this time.

That isn't a problem. The Proto-Canaanite script from which the paleo-Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet developed existed from around 1400 BCE. There may be other good reasons to suppose that most or all of the Torah was written later, but it shouldn't be claimed that there was no alphabet to write it with.

Peter.

semiopen · 06-08-2009, 06:41 AM

Thanks Peter, that's a good point.

There are where and when elements in an early writing of the Pentateuch. While it may have been possible to have written this in Proto-Canaanite, it seems quite unlikely that it could have happened in the Wilderness; not to mention the traditional disconnect.

I haven't seen commentary on this area, but the references to Canaanite cultic practices such as Molech is difficult to imagine the Israelites knowing about, given the fact that they had to send spies to find out how big the local grapes were.

As you say though, there are so many excellent reasons to reject an early origin that this is hardly the most significant.

I have an interest in whether the early origin theory can be completely refuted, and believe thiis is very close.

Minimalist · 06-08-2009, 05:07 PM

Archaeology has extensive evidence for the Phoenicians and none for "Solomon." Judah, in the 9-11th centuries BCE seems to have been little more than a backward, pastoral, region of no import on the world scene. The stories which were written later can not be substantiated by actual archaeological evidence.

It is simply inconceivable that a major culture could have left no remnant of itself in the land.

Is it possible that future excavations in Jerusalem will find evidence of this culture? Anything is possible but they have gotten down to bedrock in places and the only civilization missing is the one that the OT swears was there and dominating the whole area. My bet is that it is no more real than Camelot.

arnoldo · 06-08-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Archaeology has extensive evidence for the Phoenicians and none for "Solomon." Judah, in the 9-11th centuries BCE seems to have been little more than a backward, pastoral, region of no import on the world scene. The stories which were written later can not be substantiated by actual archaeological evidence.

It is simply inconceivable that a major culture could have left no remnant of itself in the land.

Is it possible that future excavations in Jerusalem will find evidence of this culture? Anything is possible but they have gotten down to bedrock in places and the only civilization missing is the one that the OT swears was there and dominating the whole area. My bet is that it is no more real than Camelot.

There's plenty of archaelogical evidence according to the following time-line from The Jerusalem Archaelogical Park;

http://www.archpark.org.il/

Minimalist · 06-08-2009, 06:11 PM

Read a real archaeology book.

There are always charlatans out there willing to get rich by telling the gullible what they want to hear. How else to explain "The Creation Museum?"

I suggest you start with "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman, if you dare.

Dutch_labrat · 06-09-2009, 02:55 AM

It is a myth people, myth. A fictional story based on the real world. Don't try to sell it as reality, it is not honest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

My bet is that it is no more real than Camelot.

Let's not go there. :devil3:

IamJoseph · 06-09-2009, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

IAMJoseph countered my suggestion that the Phoenician/Hebrew alphabet may have spread to Greece by Phoenician trading ships by mentioning the navy of King Solomon..

I cannot recall the context of the navy discussion, but it was not as an evidence relating to how longuage spread. As the Hebrew was always an alphabetical script, I asked for evidence of a Greek alphabetical writings older than the Hebrew - this was my logical question here, and it is an obvious requirement.

However, as there is a widesread notion the Phoenecian is older than the Hebrew, both being alphabetical, there is also the notion the greek came from the phoenecian, and thereby older than the Hebrew. I have reservations the phoenecian is older than the Hebrew, despite it being an older nation, and I have not encountered any greek alphabetical writings older than the Hebrew. I have encountered references that the Greeks themselves admit they got their alphabeticals from the Hebrew, when the Septuagint was translated in 300 BCE; then I found a back-up for this in a 2000 year writings of Josephus, which describes this history, which was then only 300 years prior to his time, and that he had access to Greek and Roman archives when he wrote.

With regard the phoenecien and hebrew, a coin was discovered one month ago, dated 2900 years, and contains Hebrew alphabetical writings, with the name of a Hebrew king. This tells me that the Hebrew was already well established here, because a coin is a representation of a country's state of culture. I know of no such equivalence of the phonecien, which is a language which does not contain some of the alphabets in the Hebrew [e.g. 'V'], indicating either that the Hebrew is older, or that it contains independent imprints not from the phonecian, or that they both come from an older, singular language.

The other problem is there are no Phoenecian books, as with the Hebrew, which has copious, advanced grammar and historical depictions, approx 100 years apart, its narrative datings being over 3000 years old: why is this so? It really does not matter which is older, as both are listed among the first three oldest alphabetical writings - but this subject is important from a bigger picture for humanity as a whole, and much of ancient history is distorted when reading only from European views.

IamJoseph · 06-09-2009, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Archaeology has extensive evidence for the Phoenicians and none for "Solomon." Judah, in the 9-11th centuries BCE seems to have been little more than a backward, pastoral, region of no import on the world scene. The stories which were written later can not be substantiated by actual archaeological evidence.

It is simply inconceivable that a major culture could have left no remnant of itself in the land.

Is it possible that future excavations in Jerusalem will find evidence of this culture? Anything is possible but they have gotten down to bedrock in places and the only civilization missing is the one that the OT swears was there and dominating the whole area. My bet is that it is no more real than Camelot.

I would not advise you place all monies on a bet, and do some better study before making such silly claims so openly. Both David and Solomon have been proven as historical figures, and alligned with the Hebrew writings' descriptions. The reason these reportings of myths spread is because this land was occupied by foreigners and invaders for 2000 years, and much of its relics intentionally destroyed. But now this land spits out proof of its historicity as no other. Both David and Solomon were real, and so was the jerusalem Temple.

This is as good as it gets with hard copy proof affirming an ancient writings:

Quote:

http://graal.co.uk/houseofdavid.html

The House of David Inscription
The Moabite Stone
Another kingly stele boasting of conflict with the House of David is the Moabite Stone from about 860 BC. This 42 by 24 inch black basalt monument (107 x 61 cms) was discovered in 1868 at Dhiban, 20 miles east of the Dead Sea (across from En-gedi) and is now housed in The Louvre Museum, Paris. As reported in Time Magazine, December 1995, it is the most extensive inscription ever recovered from ancient Palestine.
The Moabite Stone contains 36 lines of Phoenician script which relate to the rebellion of King Mesha of Moab against King Jehoram of Israel and King Jehosaphat of Judah. This battle is recounted in the Old Testament 2-Kings 3:5-27.

The Mesha Stele of Moab
Discovered by the German missionary, F.A. Klein, the Moabite Stone caused another battle when the Berlin Museum expressed an interest in removing it to the West. The Jewish Encyclopedia relates that, on hearing of this, local Arabs heaved it out of the earth, lit fires around it and doused it with cold water so that it fragmented. Mediation was subsequently conducted by the French Consulate in Jerusalem, whose conservators restored the artifact, while offering enough money to purchase the House of David Moabite Stone and placate the inhabitants of Dhiban.

House of the Lord
The Jerusalem Temple of David's son, King Solomon, was something of an enigma until the 1970s. Prior to that, no physical evidence had been discovered in respect of the Temple itself - the House of Yahweh or House of the Lord, as it was more correctly called (1-Kings 3:1, 6:1).
The Old Testament book of 1-Kings 6:2-38 gives details of the construction, which was demolished by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon 400 years later in 586 BC. A new, larger Temple was built on the same site by Prince Zerubbabel of Jerusalem from 535 BC, and this was later extended by the Seleucid Kings, the Hasmonaeans, and finally by King Herod the Great in the 1st century BC.
In his 1st-century Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus described Jerusalem in the Gospel era, stating that the Herodian Temple was "incredible". Set within a complex of over 35 acres, where the El-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock now stand, it was the most magnificent construction of the era - far bigger than the Acropolis in Athens. However, the mighty edifice was demolished by the Roman legions of General Titus in AD 70.

Beneath King Solomon's Temple
Painted on site, 1870, for the London Illustrated News
Archaeologists, working from the middle 1800s, established the foundations of the second and third Temples (those of Zerubbabel and Herod), but it was not until 1973 that a concerted attempt was made to reveal the first House of the Lord - the Temple of King Solomon. The archaeological project was led by Prof. Benjamin Mazar of the Hebrew University, with field architect Dr. Leen Ritmeyer, who wrote up the account for the Biblical Archaeology Society.

With the aid of records from the Greek historian, Strabo (64 BC - AD 21), the team worked on site for five years, making many new discoveries, among which (at the lowest course level) were the original footings of King Solomon's Temple, with masonry quite different to that of the later periods. Also, to their astonishment, in the floor of the Holy of Holies above was the carved rectangular depression (48 inches by 31 inches), where the Ark of the Covenant once stood (1-Kings 8:6).

It transpired that the Solomonid footings had actually been logged some time previously by the Palestine Exploration Fund, but the information had not become widely known. It was known however that, in the tunnels beneath, a British military expedition had made a significant discovery in 1894. There, in the labyrinthine complex of arched corridors and cisterns, they discovered a 12th-century Templar cross, a broken Templar sword and other related artifacts. These were remnants from the early 1100s, when the Knights Templars excavated for the Ark and the secreted treasures of Jerusalem.

Ostracons and the Pomegranate
There are a few archaeologically discovered artifacts from the first Temple's operative era which make specific reference to Solomon's House of the Lord. One of these is known as the Temple Ostracon, which resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. This pottery shard from about 800 BC (in the Jerusalem reign of King Joash of Judah) clearly mentions, in old Hebrew, the Temple of the 'Bayit Yahweh' - the Jerusalem House of the Lord.

House of the Lord Inscription
Another ostracon referenced by the Biblical Archaeology Review (November/December 1997) is a tax receipt written on a clay tablet in respect of a subscription of 3 shekels to the House of the Lord. It comes from much the same period as the Temple Ostracon, when the Jewish people were obliged to contribute towards the House of Yahweh's infrastructure by way of a Temple tax.
A particularly interesting artifact from the Solomon Temple reign of King Uzziah of Judah, c. 750 BC, is a small ivory pomegranate - vase shaped with a long neck and petals. Around its shoulder, in an early Hebrew script, is inscribed "Sacred donation for the priests of the House of the Lord ". Like the Temple Ostracon and the David Tablet, this item is also held at the Israel Museum.

The Temple Pomegranate
The Joash Tablet
Recently, the press and media have been discussing another inscribed tablet that was discovered in the summer of 2000 at Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The find was made by Islamic Trust renovators of the El-Aqsa mosque which occupies part of the Haram el Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) site, and the tablet is know held by an Israeli collector.
Partially broken, the Arkosic Dead Sea sandstone tablet measures 31 x 24 x 7 cms, and carries 15 lines of text written in ancient Hebrew with elements of Aramaic and old Phoenician. It describes repairs to Solomon's Temple as ordered by Solomon's descendant, King Joash of Judah in the 9th century BC.
Joash (Jehoash) reigned about 839-799 BC and, in accord with this, carbon-14 dating by Israel's Geological Institute, under Shimon Ilani, has authenticated the inscription as being around 2,800 years old. The Institute's director, Amos Bean, reported that they had discovered flecks of gold burnt into the stone, indicating that it was probably in the Temple when the building was destroyed by invading Babylonians in about 586 BC.
In line with the Bible text of 2-Kings 12:1-6 and 11-17, the tablet describes how the King instructed the priests to "take holy money … to buy quarry stones and timber and copper and labour to carry out the duty with faith."

semiopen · 06-09-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Archaeology has extensive evidence for the Phoenicians and none for "Solomon." Judah, in the 9-11th centuries BCE seems to have been little more than a backward, pastoral, region of no import on the world scene. The stories which were written later can not be substantiated by actual archaeological evidence.

It is simply inconceivable that a major culture could have left no remnant of itself in the land.

Is it possible that future excavations in Jerusalem will find evidence of this culture? Anything is possible but they have gotten down to bedrock in places and the only civilization missing is the one that the OT swears was there and dominating the whole area. My bet is that it is no more real than Camelot.

I would not advise you place all monies on a bet, and do some better study before making such silly claims so openly. Both David and Solomon have been proven as historical figures, and alligned with the Hebrew writings' descriptions. The reason these reportings of myths spread is because this land was occupied by foreigners and invaders for 2000 years, and much of its relics intentionally destroyed. But now this land spits out proof of its historicity as no other. Both David and Solomon were real, and so was the jerusalem Temple.

I think "silly" is uncalled for Joseph, especially considering the source. There is a current leaning toward a certain historicity of David as a chieftain or warlord but certainly not as a king of a united monarchy. Solomon seems to be riding on David's coattails a little; I find him less convincing.

Quote:

This is as good as it gets with hard copy proof affirming an ancient writings:

The "as good as it gets" is rather enigmatic. I'm impressed with your supplying an actual link though.

There are a lot of things mentioned in your link, but I didn't see anything actually relating to anything to a united kingdom.

There was a temple in Jersulem before the first exile, but I'm not aware of any evidence that would suggest it was any different than contemporary temples scattered throughout Canaan.

One of the references in your link mentions a pottery shard from 800 BCE, referring to a temple. Solomon would have reigned in the mid 900s.

As I've mentioned, I've been interested in the question of whether a wilderness origin of the Torah is defensible. I suspect this is now 100% rejected by academics, even by Evangelicals.

The Navy issue is intriguing because if we find Phoenician vessels (and honestly I'm not sure on the evidence for them) why do we not find Solomans.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2009, 06:41 AM	#3
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	Thanks Peter, that's a good point. There are where and when elements in an early writing of the Pentateuch. While it may have been possible to have written this in Proto-Canaanite, it seems quite unlikely that it could have happened in the Wilderness; not to mention the traditional disconnect. I haven't seen commentary on this area, but the references to Canaanite cultic practices such as Molech is difficult to imagine the Israelites knowing about, given the fact that they had to send spies to find out how big the local grapes were. As you say though, there are so many excellent reasons to reject an early origin that this is hardly the most significant. I have an interest in whether the early origin theory can be completely refuted, and believe thiis is very close.

06-08-2009, 05:07 PM	#4
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Archaeology has extensive evidence for the Phoenicians and none for "Solomon." Judah, in the 9-11th centuries BCE seems to have been little more than a backward, pastoral, region of no import on the world scene. The stories which were written later can not be substantiated by actual archaeological evidence. It is simply inconceivable that a major culture could have left no remnant of itself in the land. Is it possible that future excavations in Jerusalem will find evidence of this culture? Anything is possible but they have gotten down to bedrock in places and the only civilization missing is the one that the OT swears was there and dominating the whole area. My bet is that it is no more real than Camelot.

06-08-2009, 06:11 PM	#6
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Read a real archaeology book. There are always charlatans out there willing to get rich by telling the gullible what they want to hear. How else to explain "The Creation Museum?" I suggest you start with "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman, if you dare.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.